Abortion is wrong, yet I am pro choice

angelica

catefrances wrote:

well i think it comes down to society not actually fulfilling its role as society. we area society of individuals and that is why some sections of this so called society are marginalised and quite often made to feel like pariahs.

in this instance women are made to shoulder all responsibility for procreation because we are the ones, the ONLY ones who are capable of carrying the offspring. and all is great so long as we choose to embrace our given role as human incubators. but once we decide no more that we will decide when and if we procreate and under what circumstances, then there is a breakdown in the patriarchally defined society we all live in.

youre right angelica it is something bigger than the individual. but it shouldnt be at the expense of that same individual.

I absolutely agree it shouldn't be at the expense of that individual. That's why I'm talking about solving the problems. Solving problems are about getting way out in front of it. And solutions are only solutions when the issue actually and truly disappears for all involved.

People are so used to seeing this issue in terms of the black and white abritrariness of our own minds, that we're not looking at the big picture, with the knowing that what we focus on expands. Either/or beliefs do not bring overall solutions.

Those who are crazy enough to think they can change the world are the only ones who ever do.

angelica

digster wrote:

Well, then according to that there is no point for law. There is no need for borders and boundaries.

Can I ask how you are making this leap? Drawing this conclusion? By limiting yourself to one conclusion, is it possible you are leaping past myriad possibilities that can work for everyone?

Abuskedti

angelica wrote:

first of all, I don't at all say she shouldn't have the right to choose.

I am saying, though, that the "human suffering and loss is less with an abortion" argument is arbitrary opinion, depending on someone's perspective. It's not a given at all.

what the heck is arbitrary opinion? is all opinion arbitrary?

do you suggest that somehow that there is no difference in the suffering from the neglegent death of a father - that has friends, a wife, children and co-workers than when a child is aborted that nobody has ever met?

or do you discount the suffering that this father's children or wife may feel as arbitrary?

angelica

Abuskedti wrote:

what the heck is arbitrary opinion? is all opinion arbitrary?

do you suggest that somehow that there is no difference in the suffering from the neglegent death of a father - that has friends, a wife, children and co-workers than when a child is aborted that nobody has ever met?

or do you discount the suffering that this father's children or wife may feel as arbitrary?

I stand by what I said. It all depends on the context one chooses to frame the situation, what they will see. It depends on the perspective.

There can be equally horrific outcomes of abortion scenarios where numerous people are painfully and dramatically affected. In your above painted scenario, your context does not address such pain or acknowledge its existence.

Pain is pain.

digster

angelica wrote:

Can I ask how you are making this leap? Drawing this conclusion? By limiting yourself to one conclusion, is it possible you are leaping past myriad possibilities that can work for everyone?

I guess I made the apparently unsubstantiated assumption that by proclaiming "I see there being a huge difference between our actual natural rights, and our man-made ego-based ideas where we think we "should" have this or that (and which, imo, is unrealistic)" you expressed a feeling of inadequacy and non-necessity for those 'man-made' laws you call ego-based ideas. I guess that was my mistake.

angelica

digster wrote:

I guess I made the apparently unsubstantiated assumption that by proclaiming "I see there being a huge difference between our actual natural rights, and our man-made ego-based ideas where we think we "should" have this or that (and which, imo, is unrealistic)" you expressed a feeling of inadequacy and non-necessity for those 'man-made' laws you call ego-based ideas. I guess that was my mistake.

I did say earlier, I can see why our laws are what they are at this time. And that said, I can still see that such laws reflect our level of perception, awareness, adaptation, etc. So while I accept the way things are, I also accept the amazing potentials for basically everything that occur right this very moment.

The thing is, the degree our manmade laws are out of touch with nature will determine the degree of the pain and maladaptation we bring upon ourselves. We're always reaping the consequences of our choices. And we feel the pain of our maladaptation. And human evolutionary psychology shows we can and do progress to better choices and outcomes.

angelica

to be clear...I don't buy into what most people consider their "rights". ...people are funny....

catefrances

angelica wrote:

to be clear...I don't buy into what most people consider their "rights". ...people are funny....

the only right i see that people have is the right not to be fucked with.

though for me rights connote privilege and im not sure i believe in privileges for anyone above someone else.

angelica

catefrances wrote:

the only right i see that people have is the right not to be fucked with.

though for me rights connote privilege and im not sure i believe in privileges for anyone above someone else.

people think they have the right to life, for example...and yet, life often says otherwise, when death speaks another story loudly. We basically have the right to life for as long as we're alive......and that's about it. But kudos to humankind for trying dominate nature! We've made plenty of advances doing so...

The problem comes in when most of us, as is the case, are attached to our stories. Then we suffer when life doesn't live up to our story of what "should" happen. And we then blame life......rather than realize our suffering is caused by us and our story.

saveuplife

angelica wrote:

This isn't even close to what I'm saying.

I am saying that I see this as a much larger issue. And that I see it's highly valid to look at why we as a species are going wrong to the degree that it eventually comes down on certain individuals to take the blame/shame and the mental and emotional consequences into their bodies, minds and lives (as you and I can attest to apparently, the hardship of), when it's at the cause of something much larger than the individual.

we have practical concerns at this time, and what is happening is what it is in terms of abortion. And yet, we humans are able to theorize and to look at the bigger picture and ascertain where we can make improvements and change these dynamics...and to actually evolutionarily adapt, and weed out the necessity for such problems to arise in the first place.

Interesting post here, angela. Your take on the issue is refreshing.

saveuplife

catefrances wrote:

looking after a sick loved one is not the same. they are not a parasitic being. they are not reliant solely on the mother for their survival. they can exist without their mother specifically.
as for the government they should never be allowed to force medical issues, or morals for that matter, onto anyone, no matter what the scenario. it is clearly up to the individual and should always be.

a one month child does not need its mother specifically for its survival. it does not have parasitic relationship to its mother as an embryo does.

sure early births survive. but none as early as when the majority of abortions take place. and they do so with a whole lot of medical intervention. there is no medial technology existing today that would allow an embryo to survive outside the mothers womb.
what is odd is you equate a live separate being with one that is not separate and thusly would never survive on its own.

make no mistake i am speaking of early pregnancy embryonic abortions. not 2nd trimester and certainly not 3rd trimester.

So, you are against 2nd trimest and 3rd trimester abortions, right?

saveuplife

Abuskedti wrote:

not feeding a 1 month old causes suffering.. and I might add, that happens alot.

In your father example, I see that as different than an unborn infant, because he or she has yet to build relationships.. or memories for himself or others.. an abortion causes less human suffering than to allow a grown man to die.

in my view, in the end it is about the totality of human suffering, I believe the mother is in a better position to make that judgement than the government.

How would you punish her anyway - throw her in jail? what if she has three other children?

1st you make an "assumption" saying that abortion limits the totality of human suffering. Who are you to say that you know a woman aborting a baby will suffer less than if she did not? Who are you to say that that specific baby would not be happy as he/she grew? WHo are you to say that that baby would not develop great relationships and ADD (YES I SAID ADD) to the totality of human happiness. Who are you to say that that baby's existance in the world would bring more happiness in totality than sadness in totality? I sincerely hope you are reading this with an open-mind because I'm serious when I say, I really don't understand your point of view at all. IMHO you tend to make huge leaps of faith on this issue.... and have absolutely no foundation underneath of you. As I've said all along, I don't agree with but I can understand the argument that the fetus is not a life. I don't understand your argument at all. This "totality of suffering" is silly IMHO because there are obvious arguments to the contrary.

As for your question, I would make the act illegal, personally. But, I'm not in the position to do so. I don't know what the penalty would entail, I assume it would depend on the situation, just like most acts that are illegal.

saveuplife

digster wrote:

Unfortunately, some of your posts in here have seemingly signified that the life begins at conception approach is the natural, right approach. Such a position, I feel, is equally arbitrary. Would you be willing to stipulate, then, that all we can know for sure if the United States outlaws abortion is that the mother's rights have been limited, regardless of whether that limitation is just or not?

You know, I've read the discussion and I find it very interesting that you don't take issue with those who are saying they DO believe life starts at conception and they are fine with terminating it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't believe life begins at conception, correct? If you did believe life began at conception, would you still be pro-choice?

My point in raising this issue is that there's a large disconnect between what I consider a reasonable pro-choice stance...

-a fetus is not a life, so it's OK to terminate it

... and the stance that says life begins at conception, but it's acceptable to terminate that life.

I just don't understand how someone can say the latter opinion is not reprehensible. It's officially stating that someone believes a human being is alive and they are OK with killing it. Regardless of the rationale,... it doesn't make sense to me and never will.

catefrances

saveuplife wrote:

So, you are against 2nd trimest and 3rd trimester abortions, right?

wrong.

if im not the one having to make the call then its not my business. i shudder to even think of the circumstances that would necessitate a 3rd trimester abortion.

writersu

Abuskedti wrote:

I wonder, do you think there should be a law against Lying? Lying is wrong, and has led to unthinkable evil. It has caused pain suffering and death.

Do you want a law against Lying?

Perhaps there are other solutions to the problem of abortions? Maybe a technological solution - where we can extract the unborn from unwilling mothers... perhaps a more perfect pill... perhaps better education... perhaps a willingness to care for unwanted children

you know like the teenagers left at the hospital in Nebraska. our society loves condemning the parents of these children, but want no part of helping them.

A law against abortion is a poor excuse for a solution to what is a number of very serious problems.

Maybe a better way to describe ourselves is "pro thinking". Because like I said before there had better be no in a picketing like at an abortion clinic that does not fully exept that responsibilty to take part in the person's life who had the baby, and not just use it to bitch against a belief.

And while I may not say I am "for it" I certainly am not against it in very many situations it is all the options there is.

so I think we agree.........

Abuskedti

saveuplife wrote:

1st you make an "assumption" saying that abortion limits the totality of human suffering. Who are you to say that you know a woman aborting a baby will suffer less than if she did not? Who are you to say that that specific baby would not be happy as he/she grew? WHo are you to say that that baby would not develop great relationships and ADD (YES I SAID ADD) to the totality of human happiness. Who are you to say that that baby's existance in the world would bring more happiness in totality than sadness in totality? I sincerely hope you are reading this with an open-mind because I'm serious when I say, I really don't understand your point of view at all. IMHO you tend to make huge leaps of faith on this issue.... and have absolutely no foundation underneath of you. As I've said all along, I don't agree with but I can understand the argument that the fetus is not a life. I don't understand your argument at all. This "totality of suffering" is silly IMHO because there are obvious arguments to the contrary.

As for your question, I would make the act illegal, personally. But, I'm not in the position to do so. I don't know what the penalty would entail, I assume it would depend on the situation, just like most acts that are illegal.

first, I never said the mother wouldn't suffer.. though, whether you willing to admit or not, a mother's suffering at the loss of a 10 year old child is far greater than the suffering after an abortion.. AND your whole argument is designed to dismiss the pain of the mother.

I agree that any child born will undoubtedly add to human happiness.

don't back down from your view that it should be illegal and duck the issue of punishment. you are passionate that is should be illegal.. what punishment are you after, or do you just support a law just for the sake of arguement?

_

angelica wrote:

Plus, all the studies on abortion, done before they became political taboo, showed huge negative effects of abortion on the women who had them. These have now been swept under the rug by the politics of abortion, and the going thing is to further burden those who have emotional negative effects after abortion, by labelling them as having been weak, emotionally, to begin with. Again, more dysfunction, and more burden for the one person in our society taking it for the team of humanity when our relations break down and an unplanned pregnancy presents itself.

And that's not to mention the cancers, etc, over the long term that occurred at higher numbers in women who had abortions.

Wait, wait, wait... I've been trying to stay out of this one this time... and I know you're going to try to disagree with me here... but I have to note that your suggestions that "post-abortion sydrome" exists and that abortion causes breast cancer are completely FALSE, as has been proven repeatedly by scientific medical studies, and as I have pointed out on numerous occassions. (I'm aware that you didn't directly make these accusations, but I think they were implied in your post.)

_

saveuplife wrote:

I just don't understand how someone can say the latter opinion is not reprehensible. It's officially stating that someone believes a human being is alive and they are OK with killing it. Regardless of the rationale,... it doesn't make sense to me and never will.

Believing something is technically alive is not necessarily the same thing as believing it's a full-fledged human being.

saveuplife

scb wrote:

Believing something is technically alive is not necessarily the same thing as believing it's a full-fledged human being.

Talk to Cate...

...she said she believes it's human and alive, and she's still OK with termination.

I'm not sure what Abu's take is, but I think he sees it the same way.

saveuplife

Abuskedti wrote:

I agree that any child born will undoubtedly add to human happiness.

Then your argument doesn't make sense. If any child born will undoubtedly add to human happiness, even if there was some suffering involved (which I don't believe to be the case), who's to say that wouldn't outweight the suffering? You? Once again, you make huge leaps of faith with no foundation.

Abuskedti wrote:

don't back down from your view that it should be illegal and duck the issue of punishment. you are passionate that is should be illegal.. what punishment are you after, or do you just support a law just for the sake of arguement?

I'm not backing down. I said the punishment would depend upon circumstances, just like most punishments.