If you want to bring god into your argument prove he exists,
you may believe but many do not. thats faith
use arguments on our society and its laws not fantasy
I agree. I was using ridiculous statements, much like telling people that are against abortion to adopt every baby.
What do you think happens to 1000's of unwanted children? There are too many for our system to handle as it is. I am a Social Worker and have worked in Child Welfare since I first got out of undergrad in 1988. The foster care system SUCKS... and so does the adoption system that it is tied into... These are the unwanted children... I can't help but ask anyone who believes we should multiply the number of unwanted children in this fucked up system... TENFOLD.... by eliminating a woman's choice... just what he or she plans to do about THAT situation?
How do you think we should rectify the enormous number of unwanted children that would be born into the system... You have to remember...people that are forced to have babies are not going to get the best pre-natal care. If they are forced to have babies they dont want they may try to end the pregnancy themselves and in turn cause their child to be born premature and/or with multiple congenital anomolies. I have seen too many of these already. Kids left in garbage dumpsters and such... kids that were born to parents unable to handle parenting who ended up in the system after they LITERALLY had their brains shaken so much they were deaf... and blind.. and more... To take away choice would make the already over-burdened child welfare system and foster care system overloaded with children that nobody wanted.
So since you think that is what should happen... I personally think it is a logical and reasonable question to ask.. Just what do YOU plan to do to contribute to helping the innocent victims that are forced to be born into a world where NO ONE wants them. Many of them born at a physical disadvantage and most all of them without anyone to love, care, and nurture them. NOW THEY ARE VICTIMS!
How will you help those victims?
Did you read anything else? Man, it is becoming impossible to have a rational discussion here.
Agreed. It is impossible to hold a rational discussion here. I have read this entire thread.... And the question of how to care for unwanted children... that some of you want to force to be born into society is a very logical and rational question... Why didn't you answer my question?
I have a Master's Degree in Social Work with an emphasis on Children and Families and was voted Social Worker of the Year by New York State Foster and Adoptive Parent Association. I know a lot about the subject.
I have been working with children in the foster care system for over twenty years now...MANY... have no one who "wants them..." many children linger "freed for adoption" in the foster care system for most of their childhoods... If choice is taken away... The number of children that will enter this world at a great disadvantage; unwanted, unloved, and "burdening society" from their first breath... already uncared for before they are even born (talk about entering this world at a disadvantage...) will well more than double. If abortion is made illegal... and the number of unwanted children born into society is increased even by THREE times... What will YOU do to help ensure that they are cared for? If they are forced to be born due to societal laws... what will society do to ensure they are cared for and not just victims of society?
If you are championing the cause of "forced life" on the unborn.... why do you think it ridiculous to think you should help to care for them?
What do you think happens to 1000's of unwanted children? There are too many for our system to handle as it is. I am a Social Worker and have worked in Child Welfare since I first got out of undergrad in 1988. The foster care system SUCKS... and so does the adoption system that it is tied into... These are the unwanted children... I can't help but ask anyone who believes we should multiply the number of unwanted children in this fucked up system... TENFOLD.... by eliminating a woman's choice... just what he or she plans to do about THAT situation?
How do you think we should rectify the enormous number of unwanted children that would be born into the system... You have to remember...people that are forced to have babies are not going to get the best pre-natal care. If they are forced to have babies they dont want they may try to end the pregnancy themselves and in turn cause their child to be born premature and/or with multiple congenital anomolies. I have seen too many of these already. Kids left in garbage dumpsters and such... kids that were born to parents unable to handle parenting who ended up in the system after they LITERALLY had their brains shaken so much they were deaf... and blind.. and more... To take away choice would make the already over-burdened child welfare system and foster care system overloaded with children that nobody wanted.
So since you think that is what should happen... I personally think it is a logical and reasonable question to ask.. Just what do YOU plan to do to contribute to helping the innocent victims that are forced to be born into a world where NO ONE wants them. Many of them born at a physical disadvantage and most all of them without anyone to love, care, and nurture them. NOW THEY ARE VICTIMS!
How will you help those victims?
Did you read anything else? Man, it is becoming impossible to have a rational discussion here.
Agreed. It is impossible to hold a rational discussion here. I have read this entire thread.... And the question of how to care for unwanted children... that some of you want to force to be born into society is a very logical and rational question... Why didn't you answer my question?
I have a Master's Degree in Social Work with an emphasis on Children and Families and was voted Social Worker of the Year by New York State Foster and Adoptive Parent Association. I know a lot about the subject.
I have been working with children in the foster care system for over twenty years now...MANY... have no one who "wants them..." many children linger "freed for adoption" in the foster care system for most of their childhoods... If choice is taken away... The number of children that will enter this world at a great disadvantage; unwanted, unloved, and "burdening society" from their first breath... already uncared for before they are even born (talk about entering this world at a disadvantage...) will well more than double. If abortion is made illegal... and the number of unwanted children born into society is increased even by THREE times... What will YOU do to help ensure that they are cared for? If they are forced to be born due to societal laws... what will society do to ensure they are cared for and not just victims of society?
If you are championing the cause of "forced life" on the unborn.... why do you think it ridiculous to think you should help to care for them?
This is a huge concern that I dont think pro-lifers want to discuss because there isnt an easy answer (if there's one at all).
I cant even fathom how long it would take if abortion were made illegal to recitfy this problem.. likely never.
If you are championing the cause of "forced life" on the unborn.... why do you think it ridiculous to think you should help to care for them?
Well, since I already posted it I thought I didn't have to again. I said there is no way in today's world for abortion to just be made illegal. But someone asked me what I would like my world to be like...and it is where abortion is illegal.
So, as I mentioned before, the path to that new world is long and difficult and potentially not doable. It starts with improving sex education. Ensuring that we are having meaningful conversations with our children. I think it means levels of education where different aspects are covered. Some starting very young in school and then some not being introduced until junior high or high school aged. That way not only are we talking about it, we are doing so in a manner that makes people more comfortable talking about it.
In addition, we need to ensure that proper protection is easily accessible and affordable.
Sure these things cost $, and I certainly don't like the government spending tax payers $ willy nilly, but I believe this is an important issue to fund. In the end it will save lives and prevent/lower some of the expenses the tax payers are currently billed for.
All with the goal of eliminating the need for abortions. And, at the very least you end up with far more educated citizens that have the understanding and ability to protect themselves. So, even if you can't eliminate abortions, you minimize them and protect people from STDs, in the process.
As for your last question, I'm fine with helping to pay for children services, etc. I would just like to reduce the number that need it as well, but not through abortion, through enabling people to make better decisions.
What if you pull out? Wouldn't that be considered aborting?
OK, all joking aside, where do you draw the line?
This is why it is better to have a choice. Decide for yourself based on your morals. I think we can all agree that killing a born baby is murder. We all die someday. Abortion will always be an opinion.
18 Men Charged with Gang Rape of 11-Year-old Girl.So is she responsible to give birth to a child if she ended up pregnant?
I'd venture to guess that pregnancy would put an 11 year-old's health at risk, so I'd bet that almost 100% of people would be ok with it in this case.
By the way, you should never base the overall policy on the weirdest scenarios you can come up with.
hey cincy
only because it puts the 11 year olds health at risk?
you are kidding right?
and if only 1 guy rapes a woman of ANY age
you wanna force that woman
to let that scumbag's kid grow inside her for 9 months?
that would probably be a torture worse than the rape
The whole world will be different soon... - EV
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
18 Men Charged with Gang Rape of 11-Year-old Girl.So is she responsible to give birth to a child if she ended up pregnant?
I'd venture to guess that pregnancy would put an 11 year-old's health at risk, so I'd bet that almost 100% of people would be ok with it in this case.
By the way, you should never base the overall policy on the weirdest scenarios you can come up with.
hey cincy
only because it puts the 11 year olds health at risk?
you are kidding right?
and if only 1 guy rapes a woman of ANY age
you wanna force that woman
to let that scumbag's kid grow inside her for 9 months?
that would probably be a torture worse than the rape
Yeah...that's a tough one for me. If you believe abortion is killing a baby, it's tough to ever justify it unless you are saving the life of another by doing so. So rape is the most difficult to wrap my head around. I fully get your point.
18 Men Charged with Gang Rape of 11-Year-old Girl.So is she responsible to give birth to a child if she ended up pregnant?
I'd venture to guess that pregnancy would put an 11 year-old's health at risk, so I'd bet that almost 100% of people would be ok with it in this case.
So then do you support all health exceptions?
By the way, you should never base the overall policy on the weirdest scenarios you can come up with.
Or perhaps you should never create overall, blanketly applicable policies when there is such a wide variety of scenarios they would affect. Any time a policy is created, it must be with consideration of the affect it will actually have in real life.
For instance, I'd like to see you actually address GTFLYGIRL's point about your belief that you should always force life onto every potential person just because you feel like your personal value system should be blanketly imposed upon everyone else, regardless of the reality of harm it may cause them (the resulting person). So far I've only seen you skirt the issue by talking instead about creating a lack of need for abortion (which is a moot point since we pretty much all agree on that) instead of acknowledging the harm your position will cause to many of the potential people you are trying to protect. In my opinion, the ability to ignore or disregard these negative consequences comes only from being privileged enough to not have to face reality.
18 Men Charged with Gang Rape of 11-Year-old Girl.So is she responsible to give birth to a child if she ended up pregnant?
I'd venture to guess that pregnancy would put an 11 year-old's health at risk, so I'd bet that almost 100% of people would be ok with it in this case.
So then do you support all health exceptions?
By the way, you should never base the overall policy on the weirdest scenarios you can come up with.
Or perhaps you should never create overall, blanketly applicable policies when there is such a wide variety of scenarios they would affect.
Yes you are correct, I wouldn't create a "blanketly applicable policy". That is true, you should always have some room for judgment.
As for the "health exceptions"...not sure what they "all" are, but I think good legislation would leave this determination up to qualified physicians and then let the mother choose to follow the qualified physician's opinion or not.
For instance, I'd like to see you actually address GTFLYGIRL's point about your belief that you should always force life onto every potential person just because you feel like your personal value system should be blanketly imposed upon everyone else, regardless of the reality of harm it may cause them (the resulting person). So far I've only seen you skirt the issue by talking instead about creating a lack of need for abortion (which is a moot point since we pretty much all agree on that) instead of acknowledging the harm your position will cause to many of the potential people you are trying to protect. In my opinion, the ability to ignore or disregard these negative consequences comes only from being privileged enough to not have to face reality.
By the way, hey there, we have done this for awhile. I stayed out of this thread for a long time, then got sucked in.
Anyhow, not really sure what more you want to say. I'll try to sum it up, I think we should have the final goal in our heads to eliminate abortion. Work towards that end and hopefully get there. But I already admitted that we may never get to that point at all. What more do you want me to say?
There is no ignoring or disregard to the situation you are referring to.
Yes you are correct, I wouldn't create a "blanketly applicable policy". That is true, you should always have some room for judgment.
As for the "health exceptions"...not sure what they "all" are, but I think good legislation would leave this determination up to qualified physicians and then let the mother choose to follow the qualified physician's opinion or not.
The problem, if you really want abortions to be illegal, is that health exceptions are mostly going to be judgement calls, based on the risks & benefits of each decision. So, the doctors don't usually issue an opinion about what a patient should do; they explain the (likely or possible) consequences of continuing the pregnancy & the decision is based on the values of the patient - like with any other medical procedure.
For instance, an 11-year-old, generally speaking, is perfectly capable of carrying a pregnancy to term & delivering a baby. But there are risks & likely consequences to doing this - for the girl, the "baby," the family, & society. A doctor can't, shouldn't, & most likely won't tell this little girl & her family which risks they should be forced to accept based on his personal values; he'll just tell them what the risks are, and each family will choose differently. I've seen one family say the physical & psychological trauma of pregnancy & childbirth was an unacceptable risk to take with their 12-year-old, and another family say the supposed possible physical & psychological trauma of abortion was an unacceptable risk to take with their 13-year-old. The assessment of risk is a medical opinion, but the assessment of which risks are worth taking is always based on personal values.
So I don't think this solution will bring you the result that you want. Pro-choice doctors (who account for most of the doctors I know) will likely say the patient shouldn't be forced to put herself at any level of risk (because it's unethical to force a patient to take risks they don't want to take) & anti-choice (no, I don't mean pro-life) doctors might say their own personal value about abortion should be imposed on the patient & she should be forced to take even a high level of risk.
Here's anothe question for you: Do you include mental health exceptions?
For instance, I'd like to see you actually address GTFLYGIRL's point about your belief that you should always force life onto every potential person just because you feel like your personal value system should be blanketly imposed upon everyone else, regardless of the reality of harm it may cause them (the resulting person). So far I've only seen you skirt the issue by talking instead about creating a lack of need for abortion (which is a moot point since we pretty much all agree on that) instead of acknowledging the harm your position will cause to many of the potential people you are trying to protect. In my opinion, the ability to ignore or disregard these negative consequences comes only from being privileged enough to not have to face reality.
By the way, hey there, we have done this for awhile. I stayed out of this thread for a long time, then got sucked in.
Anyhow, not really sure what more you want to say. I'll try to sum it up, I think we should have the final goal in our heads to eliminate abortion. Work towards that end and hopefully get there. But I already admitted that we may never get to that point at all. What more do you want me to say?
There is no ignoring or disregard to the situation you are referring to.
Hey there. :wave:
I think we all agree that we should have the final goal of eliminating the need for abortion. But you take it a giant step further when you say we should criminalize abortion for those who feel like they need it. That means FORCING "people" to be born, simply because of your personal values, without regard to the negative consequences to the people/children themselves. It's these negative consequences that not everyone would prefer to be forced into, that would be harmful to the people you are trying to protect, that you have not addressed.
So I guess more specific questions would be: Since your position on forced birth is motivated by a desire to protect the people who will result from these births, how do you address the fact that you will also be forcing harm upon many of these people, whose values about which "harm" is worse might differ from yours? How is it your right to impose your values upon potential people? How is it in anyone's best interest to do so without regard for individual circumstances, including social ones? And how will you resolve the trauma (to individuals & society) that will result?
So I guess more specific questions would be: Since your position on forced birth is motivated by a desire to protect the people who will result from these births, how do you address the fact that you will also be forcing harm upon many of these people, whose values about which "harm" is worse might differ from yours? How is it your right to impose your values upon potential people? How is it in anyone's best interest to do so without regard for individual circumstances, including social ones? And how will you resolve the trauma (to individuals & society) that will result?
Let's be honest here....you are never going to think what I say is ok. You never have. That's ok, we disagree.
Again, the funny thing to me here, is as I've already stated numerous times, I'm NOT SURE we could get to the point of making it illegal/criminal. But I would love to because I believe it would be protecting life.
As for imposing my values on other people...my values also include not murdering an innocent human being that is already born. Seems like we have laws against that. I wonder why that's ok? You should know by now where this dance leads with you and me, a disagreement about when life begins.
As for resolving all the trauma that result from what my policy would be, #1 it would be limited due to the stuff I already mentioned. It would be dealt with on a case by case basis with an improved process for adoption and support for the mother (mental health as well as physical), etc. No use in getting specific in this as it's just an extension of the same process that should be used to minimize abortions even if they are legal.
Why is it that I have to answer all these questions about what my beliefs would do to people, but no Pro-Choice person ever discusses what their opinion on the matter leads to, which in the eyes of those that oppose abortion is the killing of an unborn baby? How do you tend to resolve the trauma your viewpoint causes? I guess that trauma is kinda final and once disposed of nothing left to deal with.
Anyhow, I do respect your opinion and your reasoning behind your opinion. It just continues to amaze me that no one seems to be able to respect the opinion of someone not wanting unborn babies to be terminated. You can disagree with the reasoning (when life begins) but it seems like a very reasonable thing that someone that believes that collection of cells is human life (because without an intervention it will be born a human baby) would be against abortion, no?
So I guess more specific questions would be: Since your position on forced birth is motivated by a desire to protect the people who will result from these births, how do you address the fact that you will also be forcing harm upon many of these people, whose values about which "harm" is worse might differ from yours? How is it your right to impose your values upon potential people? How is it in anyone's best interest to do so without regard for individual circumstances, including social ones? And how will you resolve the trauma (to individuals & society) that will result?
Let's be honest here....you are never going to think what I say is ok. You never have. That's ok, we disagree.
Again, the funny thing to me here, is as I've already stated numerous times, I'm NOT SURE we could get to the point of making it illegal/criminal. But I would love to because I believe it would be protecting life.
As for imposing my values on other people...my values also include not murdering an innocent human being that is already born. Seems like we have laws against that. I wonder why that's ok? You should know by now where this dance leads with you and me, a disagreement about when life begins.
As for resolving all the trauma that result from what my policy would be, #1 it would be limited due to the stuff I already mentioned. It would be dealt with on a case by case basis with an improved process for adoption and support for the mother (mental health as well as physical), etc. No use in getting specific in this as it's just an extension of the same process that should be used to minimize abortions even if they are legal.
Why is it that I have to answer all these questions about what my beliefs would do to people, but no Pro-Choice person ever discusses what their opinion on the matter leads to, which in the eyes of those that oppose abortion is the killing of an unborn baby? How do you tend to resolve the trauma your viewpoint causes? I guess that trauma is kinda final and once disposed of nothing left to deal with.
Anyhow, I do respect your opinion and your reasoning behind your opinion. It just continues to amaze me that no one seems to be able to respect the opinion of someone not wanting unborn babies to be terminated. You can disagree with the reasoning (when life begins) but it seems like a very reasonable thing that someone that believes that collection of cells is human life (because without an intervention it will be born a human baby) would be against abortion, no?
Yes, we have discussed abortion many times before, but I don't believe we've ever addressed the very valid point brought up by GTFLYGIRL. And, though I disagree with your conclusion, I am quite capable of acknowledging good logic if/when I see it. I'm just asking you to explain your logic and how all parts of your position reconcile with one another, which I think is reasonable. Don't you agree?
I know you've said many times that you're not sure we could get to the point where abortion is illegal, but that doesn't negate the fact that you would like it to be illegal, which is what we're discussing.
My values also include not murdering people, "innocent" or otherwise. The reason why it's okay to have laws against that, since you asked, is because those people want to continue to live & murdering them would infringe upon their right to make that decision. It's a pro-choice law, and that's the difference between murder laws and anti-choice laws - with murder laws, the rights/desires of the individual are respected. Pro-life anti-choice laws, however, are no better than mandatory abortion anti-choice laws would be. So a better analogy to living people would be laws FORCING people to remain alive at all costs, including remaining on life support, even if it's not in their best interest. Do you believe we should have a law like this? If not, why is it not okay to force a born person to continue life at all costs,on life support, regardless of circumstance, but it's okay to force an "unborn person" to so do?
Actually, this has nothing to do with a disagreement about when life begins. That's not actually particularly relevant to my opinion on abortion. I only share my opinion about when personhood begins because it's relevant to other people's opinions. I actually agree with you about when life begins. Yes, a cluster of living cells is alive. (Of course, my appendix was alive too, until I had it surgically removed, but no one seems to be up in arms about that.)
Regarding your statement about the limitation of trauma, does that mean you don't think abortion should be made illegal unless we can guarantee that these measures are successfully in place to limit the harmful consequences? If so, how limited will they have to be? What level of harm to the people who would be born is acceptable?
I think it's fair to ask you to reconcile the trauma your position would cause because there is absolute evidence that forcing people to be born into bad circumstances is sometimes harmful to them (not to mention the other, already living people to whom it's harmful). We see it every single day (though some people are privileged to be able to see less of it and disregard what they do see). On the other hand, there is absolutely no evidence that discontinuing a pregnancy is harmful to anyone. None. That idea is based ENTIRELY on personal values. There are many, many people who tell us their lives are horrible and they would prefer to have never been born. There has never once been an aborted fetus who indicated to us in any way that it would have preferred to be born. And even if fetuses could have opinions about such things, their opinions & values would vary, which is why it has to be a matter of personal choice.
Yes, it seems a very reasonable thing that someone who believes a fetus is a person AND believes that life at all costs is more important than the consequences would be against abortion - for herself, for his/her own fetus/situation - and I can respect that. But what I & others can't respect is when people take it a step further to say that everyone else in the world should have to follow their personal beliefs, regardless of the situation. I don't think that's any different than if I were to say that I don't think a fetus is a life and I think life is never valuable and therefore everyone in the world should be forced to follow my beliefs and terminate all their pregnancies. That wouldn't be very fair or logical, would it?
On the other hand, there is absolutely no evidence that discontinuing a pregnancy is harmful to anyone. None.
Ummmm...except of course the unborn child that is killed, right?
As for all of your other questions, I will try to remember to come back to them, but I honestly don't feel like it at this point.
I will just say, there are people that say they wish they were never born. Of course they never got to make that choice, and in abortions they still don't. Someone else is imposing their will and values upon them. Just like you think I am.
On the other hand, there is absolutely no evidence that discontinuing a pregnancy is harmful to anyone. None.
Ummmm...except of course the unborn child that is killed, right?
The fact that life doesn't continue doesn't necessarily constitute harm (especially if an organism doesn't have a consciousness). That's just one opinion with no solid evidence to back it up. I can respect it as an opinion, but not as a fact.
As for all of your other questions, I will try to remember to come back to them, but I honestly don't feel like it at this point.
I will just say, there are people that say they wish they were never born. Of course they never got to make that choice, and in abortions they still don't. Someone else is imposing their will and values upon them. Just like you think I am.
I understand that the potential mother is imposing her will & values upon her potential child - whether she decides to continue or discontinue the pregnancy. I just think that this decision should be made on an individual basis. I also believe that, given the inability of anyone to express his will before he is born (when he likely has no will anyway), the mother is the best proxy - not any old random person who doesn't even know the situation.
So, since someone else ALWAYS has to make decisions on behalf of the potential person, I guess my question is why you think you are the most appropriate person to be making these decisions for everyone. And do you think you're more qualified than the mother to make all the other decisions she makes on behalf of the fetus too?
So, since someone else ALWAYS has to make decisions on behalf of the potential person, I guess my question is why you think you are the most appropriate person to be making these decisions for everyone. And do you think you're more qualified than the mother to make all the other decisions she makes on behalf of the fetus too?
Interesting question and phrasing...I would say because "my" decision allows them to make decisions for themselves once they are able. I see where you are coming from though.
So, since someone else ALWAYS has to make decisions on behalf of the potential person, I guess my question is why you think you are the most appropriate person to be making these decisions for everyone. And do you think you're more qualified than the mother to make all the other decisions she makes on behalf of the fetus too?
Interesting question and phrasing...I would say because "my" decision allows them to make decisions for themselves once they are able. I see where you are coming from though.
I see your point. But, in reality, no one is ever able to decide for themselves whether or not to be born. So you are necessarily taking this decision away from the potential person (and his/her proxy). They don't have this option once they are born. They are left only with the option to commit suicide, which I think most people consider to be a completely different option. It's also an option that isn't really viable until the person has possibly suffered for at least, say, 10-15 years. So I think that leaves as back at square one with the question: Who is best qualified to make the decision about whether to allow this to happen to this child, and should it be made without regard to circumstance or on an individual basis?
I just wish all the pro choicers would also be against the death penalty, that they would donante an extra 30% of their income to the welware system and adopt at least one unwanted child per household before they even speak to another person regarding abortion. Quit preaching and put your money where your mouth is. Then I would be ok with Pro Lifers. However, if life is a test by God, then freewill must come into play.
I just wish all the pro choicers would also be against the death penalty, that they would donante an extra 30% of their income to the welware system and adopt at least one unwanted child per household before they even speak to another person regarding abortion. Quit preaching and put your money where your mouth is. Then I would be ok with Pro Lifers. However, if life is a test by God, then freewill must come into play.
Blah blah blah... I just wish all The God loving people weren't also closet child molesters.
When all the priests stop molesting children, I will be OK with religious people.
I just wish all the pro choicers would also be against the death penalty, that they would donante an extra 30% of their income to the welware system and adopt at least one unwanted child per household before they even speak to another person regarding abortion. Quit preaching and put your money where your mouth is. Then I would be ok with Pro Lifers. However, if life is a test by God, then freewill must come into play.
Kill the unborn babies.....save the people that kill them after they are born. The life of a liberal.
I just wish all the pro choicers would also be against the death penalty, that they would donante an extra 30% of their income to the welware system and adopt at least one unwanted child per household before they even speak to another person regarding abortion. Quit preaching and put your money where your mouth is. Then I would be ok with Pro Lifers. However, if life is a test by God, then freewill must come into play.
Blah blah blah... I just wish all The God loving people weren't also closet child molesters.
When all the priests stop molesting children, I will be OK with religious people.
WOW, Brandon10 made a comment without calling someone a racist.
Comments
you may believe but many do not. thats faith
use arguments on our society and its laws not fantasy
Agreed. It is impossible to hold a rational discussion here. I have read this entire thread.... And the question of how to care for unwanted children... that some of you want to force to be born into society is a very logical and rational question... Why didn't you answer my question?
I have a Master's Degree in Social Work with an emphasis on Children and Families and was voted Social Worker of the Year by New York State Foster and Adoptive Parent Association. I know a lot about the subject.
I have been working with children in the foster care system for over twenty years now...MANY... have no one who "wants them..." many children linger "freed for adoption" in the foster care system for most of their childhoods... If choice is taken away... The number of children that will enter this world at a great disadvantage; unwanted, unloved, and "burdening society" from their first breath... already uncared for before they are even born (talk about entering this world at a disadvantage...) will well more than double. If abortion is made illegal... and the number of unwanted children born into society is increased even by THREE times... What will YOU do to help ensure that they are cared for? If they are forced to be born due to societal laws... what will society do to ensure they are cared for and not just victims of society?
If you are championing the cause of "forced life" on the unborn.... why do you think it ridiculous to think you should help to care for them?
This is a huge concern that I dont think pro-lifers want to discuss because there isnt an easy answer (if there's one at all).
I cant even fathom how long it would take if abortion were made illegal to recitfy this problem.. likely never.
Well, since I already posted it I thought I didn't have to again. I said there is no way in today's world for abortion to just be made illegal. But someone asked me what I would like my world to be like...and it is where abortion is illegal.
So, as I mentioned before, the path to that new world is long and difficult and potentially not doable. It starts with improving sex education. Ensuring that we are having meaningful conversations with our children. I think it means levels of education where different aspects are covered. Some starting very young in school and then some not being introduced until junior high or high school aged. That way not only are we talking about it, we are doing so in a manner that makes people more comfortable talking about it.
In addition, we need to ensure that proper protection is easily accessible and affordable.
Sure these things cost $, and I certainly don't like the government spending tax payers $ willy nilly, but I believe this is an important issue to fund. In the end it will save lives and prevent/lower some of the expenses the tax payers are currently billed for.
All with the goal of eliminating the need for abortions. And, at the very least you end up with far more educated citizens that have the understanding and ability to protect themselves. So, even if you can't eliminate abortions, you minimize them and protect people from STDs, in the process.
As for your last question, I'm fine with helping to pay for children services, etc. I would just like to reduce the number that need it as well, but not through abortion, through enabling people to make better decisions.
The poster known as SCB has clearly let her membership expire.
Havent you figured that out?
OK, all joking aside, where do you draw the line?
This is why it is better to have a choice. Decide for yourself based on your morals. I think we can all agree that killing a born baby is murder. We all die someday. Abortion will always be an opinion.
I'd venture to guess that pregnancy would put an 11 year-old's health at risk, so I'd bet that almost 100% of people would be ok with it in this case.
By the way, you should never base the overall policy on the weirdest scenarios you can come up with.
hey cincy
only because it puts the 11 year olds health at risk?
you are kidding right?
and if only 1 guy rapes a woman of ANY age
you wanna force that woman
to let that scumbag's kid grow inside her for 9 months?
that would probably be a torture worse than the rape
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
No, I believed you that it happened. Point still stands.
Yeah...that's a tough one for me. If you believe abortion is killing a baby, it's tough to ever justify it unless you are saving the life of another by doing so. So rape is the most difficult to wrap my head around. I fully get your point.
Miss me?
But you have me confused with someone else. I'm _. _____ is another person entirely.
Nice job on your name change, by the way.
So then do you support all health exceptions?
Or perhaps you should never create overall, blanketly applicable policies when there is such a wide variety of scenarios they would affect. Any time a policy is created, it must be with consideration of the affect it will actually have in real life.
For instance, I'd like to see you actually address GTFLYGIRL's point about your belief that you should always force life onto every potential person just because you feel like your personal value system should be blanketly imposed upon everyone else, regardless of the reality of harm it may cause them (the resulting person). So far I've only seen you skirt the issue by talking instead about creating a lack of need for abortion (which is a moot point since we pretty much all agree on that) instead of acknowledging the harm your position will cause to many of the potential people you are trying to protect. In my opinion, the ability to ignore or disregard these negative consequences comes only from being privileged enough to not have to face reality.
Yes you are correct, I wouldn't create a "blanketly applicable policy". That is true, you should always have some room for judgment.
As for the "health exceptions"...not sure what they "all" are, but I think good legislation would leave this determination up to qualified physicians and then let the mother choose to follow the qualified physician's opinion or not.
By the way, hey there, we have done this for awhile. I stayed out of this thread for a long time, then got sucked in.
Anyhow, not really sure what more you want to say. I'll try to sum it up, I think we should have the final goal in our heads to eliminate abortion. Work towards that end and hopefully get there. But I already admitted that we may never get to that point at all. What more do you want me to say?
There is no ignoring or disregard to the situation you are referring to.
The problem, if you really want abortions to be illegal, is that health exceptions are mostly going to be judgement calls, based on the risks & benefits of each decision. So, the doctors don't usually issue an opinion about what a patient should do; they explain the (likely or possible) consequences of continuing the pregnancy & the decision is based on the values of the patient - like with any other medical procedure.
For instance, an 11-year-old, generally speaking, is perfectly capable of carrying a pregnancy to term & delivering a baby. But there are risks & likely consequences to doing this - for the girl, the "baby," the family, & society. A doctor can't, shouldn't, & most likely won't tell this little girl & her family which risks they should be forced to accept based on his personal values; he'll just tell them what the risks are, and each family will choose differently. I've seen one family say the physical & psychological trauma of pregnancy & childbirth was an unacceptable risk to take with their 12-year-old, and another family say the supposed possible physical & psychological trauma of abortion was an unacceptable risk to take with their 13-year-old. The assessment of risk is a medical opinion, but the assessment of which risks are worth taking is always based on personal values.
So I don't think this solution will bring you the result that you want. Pro-choice doctors (who account for most of the doctors I know) will likely say the patient shouldn't be forced to put herself at any level of risk (because it's unethical to force a patient to take risks they don't want to take) & anti-choice (no, I don't mean pro-life) doctors might say their own personal value about abortion should be imposed on the patient & she should be forced to take even a high level of risk.
Here's anothe question for you: Do you include mental health exceptions?
Hey there. :wave:
I think we all agree that we should have the final goal of eliminating the need for abortion. But you take it a giant step further when you say we should criminalize abortion for those who feel like they need it. That means FORCING "people" to be born, simply because of your personal values, without regard to the negative consequences to the people/children themselves. It's these negative consequences that not everyone would prefer to be forced into, that would be harmful to the people you are trying to protect, that you have not addressed.
So I guess more specific questions would be: Since your position on forced birth is motivated by a desire to protect the people who will result from these births, how do you address the fact that you will also be forcing harm upon many of these people, whose values about which "harm" is worse might differ from yours? How is it your right to impose your values upon potential people? How is it in anyone's best interest to do so without regard for individual circumstances, including social ones? And how will you resolve the trauma (to individuals & society) that will result?
Let's be honest here....you are never going to think what I say is ok. You never have. That's ok, we disagree.
Again, the funny thing to me here, is as I've already stated numerous times, I'm NOT SURE we could get to the point of making it illegal/criminal. But I would love to because I believe it would be protecting life.
As for imposing my values on other people...my values also include not murdering an innocent human being that is already born. Seems like we have laws against that. I wonder why that's ok? You should know by now where this dance leads with you and me, a disagreement about when life begins.
As for resolving all the trauma that result from what my policy would be, #1 it would be limited due to the stuff I already mentioned. It would be dealt with on a case by case basis with an improved process for adoption and support for the mother (mental health as well as physical), etc. No use in getting specific in this as it's just an extension of the same process that should be used to minimize abortions even if they are legal.
Why is it that I have to answer all these questions about what my beliefs would do to people, but no Pro-Choice person ever discusses what their opinion on the matter leads to, which in the eyes of those that oppose abortion is the killing of an unborn baby? How do you tend to resolve the trauma your viewpoint causes? I guess that trauma is kinda final and once disposed of nothing left to deal with.
Anyhow, I do respect your opinion and your reasoning behind your opinion. It just continues to amaze me that no one seems to be able to respect the opinion of someone not wanting unborn babies to be terminated. You can disagree with the reasoning (when life begins) but it seems like a very reasonable thing that someone that believes that collection of cells is human life (because without an intervention it will be born a human baby) would be against abortion, no?
Yes, we have discussed abortion many times before, but I don't believe we've ever addressed the very valid point brought up by GTFLYGIRL. And, though I disagree with your conclusion, I am quite capable of acknowledging good logic if/when I see it. I'm just asking you to explain your logic and how all parts of your position reconcile with one another, which I think is reasonable. Don't you agree?
I know you've said many times that you're not sure we could get to the point where abortion is illegal, but that doesn't negate the fact that you would like it to be illegal, which is what we're discussing.
My values also include not murdering people, "innocent" or otherwise. The reason why it's okay to have laws against that, since you asked, is because those people want to continue to live & murdering them would infringe upon their right to make that decision. It's a pro-choice law, and that's the difference between murder laws and anti-choice laws - with murder laws, the rights/desires of the individual are respected. Pro-life anti-choice laws, however, are no better than mandatory abortion anti-choice laws would be. So a better analogy to living people would be laws FORCING people to remain alive at all costs, including remaining on life support, even if it's not in their best interest. Do you believe we should have a law like this? If not, why is it not okay to force a born person to continue life at all costs,on life support, regardless of circumstance, but it's okay to force an "unborn person" to so do?
Actually, this has nothing to do with a disagreement about when life begins. That's not actually particularly relevant to my opinion on abortion. I only share my opinion about when personhood begins because it's relevant to other people's opinions. I actually agree with you about when life begins. Yes, a cluster of living cells is alive. (Of course, my appendix was alive too, until I had it surgically removed, but no one seems to be up in arms about that.)
Regarding your statement about the limitation of trauma, does that mean you don't think abortion should be made illegal unless we can guarantee that these measures are successfully in place to limit the harmful consequences? If so, how limited will they have to be? What level of harm to the people who would be born is acceptable?
I think it's fair to ask you to reconcile the trauma your position would cause because there is absolute evidence that forcing people to be born into bad circumstances is sometimes harmful to them (not to mention the other, already living people to whom it's harmful). We see it every single day (though some people are privileged to be able to see less of it and disregard what they do see). On the other hand, there is absolutely no evidence that discontinuing a pregnancy is harmful to anyone. None. That idea is based ENTIRELY on personal values. There are many, many people who tell us their lives are horrible and they would prefer to have never been born. There has never once been an aborted fetus who indicated to us in any way that it would have preferred to be born. And even if fetuses could have opinions about such things, their opinions & values would vary, which is why it has to be a matter of personal choice.
Yes, it seems a very reasonable thing that someone who believes a fetus is a person AND believes that life at all costs is more important than the consequences would be against abortion - for herself, for his/her own fetus/situation - and I can respect that. But what I & others can't respect is when people take it a step further to say that everyone else in the world should have to follow their personal beliefs, regardless of the situation. I don't think that's any different than if I were to say that I don't think a fetus is a life and I think life is never valuable and therefore everyone in the world should be forced to follow my beliefs and terminate all their pregnancies. That wouldn't be very fair or logical, would it?
Ummmm...except of course the unborn child that is killed, right?
As for all of your other questions, I will try to remember to come back to them, but I honestly don't feel like it at this point.
I will just say, there are people that say they wish they were never born. Of course they never got to make that choice, and in abortions they still don't. Someone else is imposing their will and values upon them. Just like you think I am.
The fact that life doesn't continue doesn't necessarily constitute harm (especially if an organism doesn't have a consciousness). That's just one opinion with no solid evidence to back it up. I can respect it as an opinion, but not as a fact.
I understand that the potential mother is imposing her will & values upon her potential child - whether she decides to continue or discontinue the pregnancy. I just think that this decision should be made on an individual basis. I also believe that, given the inability of anyone to express his will before he is born (when he likely has no will anyway), the mother is the best proxy - not any old random person who doesn't even know the situation.
So, since someone else ALWAYS has to make decisions on behalf of the potential person, I guess my question is why you think you are the most appropriate person to be making these decisions for everyone. And do you think you're more qualified than the mother to make all the other decisions she makes on behalf of the fetus too?
Interesting question and phrasing...I would say because "my" decision allows them to make decisions for themselves once they are able. I see where you are coming from though.
I see your point. But, in reality, no one is ever able to decide for themselves whether or not to be born. So you are necessarily taking this decision away from the potential person (and his/her proxy). They don't have this option once they are born. They are left only with the option to commit suicide, which I think most people consider to be a completely different option. It's also an option that isn't really viable until the person has possibly suffered for at least, say, 10-15 years. So I think that leaves as back at square one with the question: Who is best qualified to make the decision about whether to allow this to happen to this child, and should it be made without regard to circumstance or on an individual basis?
PJ: 2011-09-03 2011-09-04
Blah blah blah... I just wish all The God loving people weren't also closet child molesters.
When all the priests stop molesting children, I will be OK with religious people.
Kill the unborn babies.....save the people that kill them after they are born. The life of a liberal.
WOW, Brandon10 made a comment without calling someone a racist.