abortion

decides2dream

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

scb wrote:

Perhaps. So are you saying that no one should get anyone pregnant unless they both agree completely, in advance, about what decision they would make? It's just not possible. We can't know in advance what decision we would make and we can't each agree to let the other decide.

Exactly. But that's my beef with this whole issue of 'choice.' Having sex involves risk, even while multiple methods of contraception. It might be the worst form of denial that we as humans experience-- that having sex makes babies. Even while trying to block it from happening, it still happens-- it may happen much much less, but if it's still within the realm possibility, why gloss over this fact? Someone call Al Gore, I think we've found an even more inconvenient truth!

This is where we need to evolve as human beings-- that if a man and a woman agree to have sex, that they not only to agree to do it, but to roll with whatever comes after-- after all, the end result is just nature taking its course, right?

'roll with it'....can certainly include abortion. too often it is said that those who choose abortion are behaving irresponsibly. choosing abortion, or choosing to have the child and keep it or give it up for adoption....ALL are responsible choices.


i mean, realistically speaking...unwanted children have always existed, abortions have been performed forever as well, etc, etc.....so to simply say 'roll with it' or just 'deal with it'......hasn't worked out too well yet has it? it'll never be a 'perfect' scenario, it never is...unintended/undesired consequences. however, abortion certainly is a viable, responsible choice.



btw

Abusktdi wrote:

I can agree that what I propose will be something of a strain on the legal system, and perhaps not realistic or even possible. that is another debate.

perhaps it's another debate to YOU...but it is not to me. it's all related. what's the point if it's not possible? and somewhat of a strain on the legal system? i think that vastly underestimates the situation. beyond that....i think it will vastly strain, the mother, the father....and the unintended but forced into the world child as well. i am VERY thankful that as of right now, the law does see the decision does need to lie with ONE person.

_

Abuskedti wrote:

I can agree that what I propose will be something of a strain on the legal system, and perhaps not realistic or even possible. that is another debate.

I don't think that's another debate.

however, to say that maybe the "mothers wants to take responsibility for the child and abort" suggests that the mother is the responsible parent in a family and a father is a mother's helper. does that view begin at conception and end around the third trimester - or extend through college?

No, I'm not suggesting that the mother is the only responsible parent.

You seem to be basing your argument on the premise that being born is necessarily in the best interest of the child (and the family unit/other children), so therefore it is obviously the right choice as long as there's a parent willing to take responsibility and raise the child. I think this is a faulty premise. So it's possible for the parents to disagree and both have valid positions... rather than just the one who choses life having a valid position.

The part that's impossible is giving equal weight to both parents' "rights" in this case. Only ONE decision can be executed (no pun intended). You suggest we give MORE weight to the parent who chooses childbirth. I say to give more weight to the parent on whose body the potential child is (at the time the decision is made) dependent, whose health will be put at risk, whose body will change forever, and on whom, realistically, the caregiving responsibility will likely fall. Neither you nor I are actually giving equal weight to both parents "rights" though.

VINNY GOOMBA

Regardless, it isn't going anywhere. What irks me is that our bodies haved been designed to have kids at an incredibly young age-- What, 12, 13?

To live in this world (or at least here in America), you have to be borderline crazy to want to have a kid until you're on your feet financially. What's that, 30+ for some people? Never for others?

Instead of argue about this, I'd rather work towards a world where no one wants to make that 'choice.' Isn't that what everybody wants? No abortions, by choice?

Abuskedti

decides2dream wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

scb wrote:

Perhaps. So are you saying that no one should get anyone pregnant unless they both agree completely, in advance, about what decision they would make? It's just not possible. We can't know in advance what decision we would make and we can't each agree to let the other decide.

Exactly. But that's my beef with this whole issue of 'choice.' Having sex involves risk, even while multiple methods of contraception. It might be the worst form of denial that we as humans experience-- that having sex makes babies. Even while trying to block it from happening, it still happens-- it may happen much much less, but if it's still within the realm possibility, why gloss over this fact? Someone call Al Gore, I think we've found an even more inconvenient truth!

This is where we need to evolve as human beings-- that if a man and a woman agree to have sex, that they not only to agree to do it, but to roll with whatever comes after-- after all, the end result is just nature taking its course, right?

I was discussing what I believe to be right over wrong. Once that is established, an attempt to bring our laws in line is next. I am not unreasonable. Comprimise is important. However, if someone suggests one parent has authority to destroy what is a healthy family without the equal input of the other - I will disagree.
If it happens that our legal system is short of ideas to enforce justice in any situation, then it should continue to work to develop one.





'roll with it'....can certainly include abortion. too often it is said that those who choose abortion are behaving irresponsibly. choosing abortion, or choosing to have the child and keep it or give it up for adoption....ALL are responsible choices.


i mean, realistically speaking...unwanted children have always existed, abortions have been performed forever as well, etc, etc.....so to simply say 'roll with it' or just 'deal with it'......hasn't worked out too well yet has it? it'll never be a 'perfect' scenario, it never is...unintended/undesired consequences. however, abortion certainly is a viable, responsible choice.



btw

Abusktdi wrote:

I can agree that what I propose will be something of a strain on the legal system, and perhaps not realistic or even possible. that is another debate.

perhaps it's another debate to YOU...but it is not to me. it's all related. what's the point if it's not possible? and somewhat of a strain on the legal system? i think that vastly underestimates the situation. beyond that....i think it will vastly strain, the mother, the father....and the unintended but forced into the world child as well. i am VERY thankful that as of right now, the law does see the decision does need to lie with ONE person.

_

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

scb wrote:

Perhaps. So are you saying that no one should get anyone pregnant unless they both agree completely, in advance, about what decision they would make? It's just not possible. We can't know in advance what decision we would make and we can't each agree to let the other decide.

Exactly. But that's my beef with this whole issue of 'choice.' Having sex involves risk, even while multiple methods of contraception. It might be the worst form of denial that we as humans experience-- that having sex makes babies. Even while trying to block it from happening, it still happens-- it may happen much much less, but if it's still within the realm possibility, why gloss over this fact? Someone call Al Gore, I think we've found an even more inconvenient truth!

This is where we need to evolve as human beings-- that if a man and a woman agree to have sex, that they not only to agree to do it, but to roll with whatever comes after-- after all, the end result is just nature taking its course, right?

I agree that people need to be responsible when having sex and not gloss over the fact that it might result in pregnancy.

But your comment doesn't take into account the myriad circumstances under which pregnancy decisions are made. (I think this is probably the biggest problem with the abortion debate - that people don't know what it's like to walk in another's shoes - even their future selves - and yet still pass judgement. But that's another story.) Some people actually do make the decision together to have a child and then things don't turn out as they plan and suddenly they change their minds. People get married and want to have sex even though they're in no position to have a child, which I think most people would agree is reasonable. Et cetera. The "she should've kept her legs closed" and "he should've kept it in his pants" arguments just don't adequately address the issue.

decides2dream

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

Regardless, it isn't going anywhere. What irks me is that our bodies haved been designed to have kids at an incredibly young age-- What, 12, 13?

To live in this world (or at least here in America), you have to be borderline crazy to want to have a kid until you're on your feet financially. What's that, 30+ for some people? Never for others?

Instead of argue about this, I'd rather work towards a world where no one wants to make that 'choice.' Isn't that what everybody wants? No abortions, by choice?

absolutely.
i'd also love it if no one HAD to make that choice....b/c birth control was THAT reliable, and all were THAT reponsible, 100% of the time. however, we are human and we are flawed creatures...so don't know of that possibility.



funny too, on a related topic....i've read a few times now that many of the infertility issues that couples face today, almost 80% of em, or some equally outrageous # of these issues...could be resolved by parents choosing to have children YOUNGER. the younger you are, more than likely...the more fertile you are, and increases your chances for getting pregnant, staying pregnant, having a healthy pregnancy and birth. obviously, many other factors are involved...but and sure, even at a young age, many do still have fertility issues.....but i found it interesting the causal link between age and infertility. not surprised, but interesting. so it most definitely is a catch-22.

VINNY GOOMBA

With regards to my last post, I don't necessarily think it might have ever been a good idea for teenagers to have kids, it's probably a good idea to have maturity under your belt-- but it makes me think that society is really operating backwards. The fact that it IS a reality that people have always been able to bear children at such an early age, makes you wish that society would accomodate that-- Less people working, more focus on loving and raising a family.

How off am I if I say that half of all abortions come down to not having the $ to raise a child? I know there are some stat-hounds around here. Give me the facts, I would appreciate them.

decides2dream

scb wrote:

The part that's impossible is giving equal weight to both parents' "rights" in this case. Only ONE decision can be executed (no pun intended). You suggest we give MORE weight to the parent who chooses childbirth. I say to give more weight to the parent on whose body the potential child is (at the time the decision is made) dependent, whose health will be put at risk, whose body will change forever, and on whom, realistically, the caregiving responsibility will likely fall. Neither you nor I are actually giving equal weight to both parents "rights" though.

really well stated.




i see mentioned the idea of 'family'...since when is two unrelated people, who perhaps spent one night together....a 'healthy family'.......? b/c really, i would HOPE that a couple that is somewhat committed to each other, dating, etc....would've at least discussed the possibility of unwanted pregnancy beforehand. i mean sure, errors are made, by all involved....no one particular person's 'fault'...but at least if a couple chooses irresponsibility one time and has an unintended pregnancy....hopefully they already discussed to some extent what they both would want. not saying it can't change when faced with the 'reality' of it....but at the very least, i would hope a staunchly pro-life person would not sleep with a staunchly pro-choice person...b/c that would be a recipe for disaster. so really, to me.....this whole bit aout being in agreement, i should think at least 90% of the time (just throwing a # out there) most 'couples' would be in agreement.....it's the random sexual hook-ups, that perhaps would not.

_

decides2dream wrote:

i am VERY thankful that as of right now, the law does see the decision does need to lie with ONE person.

It's not only that the LAW has agreed that the decision needs to lie with one person, but even that it's simply not possible for the decision to lie with more than one person.

decides2dream

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

With regards to my last post, I don't necessarily think it might have ever been a good idea for teenagers to have kids, it's probably a good idea to have maturity under your belt-- but it makes me think that society is really operating backwards. The fact that it IS a reality that people have always been able to bear children at such an early age, makes you wish that society would accomodate that-- Less people working, more focus on loving and raising a family.

How off am I if I say that half of all abortions come down to not having the $ to raise a child? I know there are some stat-hounds around here. Give me the facts, I would appreciate them.

i realize you're not suggesting that. :P nor am i!
just agreeing with the overall biology of it all...and even doctors are simply saying, for fertility viability, early 20s is best.....but most especilly, ideally, under 30 is all. and i don't make these comments to upset anyone who became a parent over 30, or is planning on becoming one, etc, etc....just sharing information. what we want, and how are bodies are designed, not always the same.


as to the 'facts' of it being $$$...i honestly don't know. however, imo, i would think more than ANYthing, it would be age and/or simply not being ready to be a parent. i mean, most of the single moms i know...or any of the women i know who have had abortions, most were in high school at the time....a few in college. but really, most were quite young.

also why access, education and removal of social/religious stigmas for BC...would work wonders. altho some impulse control would help too.

_

Abuskedti wrote:

I am not unreasonable.

I agree with you and appreciate that.

However, if someone suggests one parent has authority to destroy what is a healthy family without the equal input of the other - I will disagree.

As you said, let's take a step back. You're assuming that having an abortion would destroy a healthy family. That's not a given. Many choose abortion because they believe that having another baby would destroy their already-existing healthy family. I believe this position should be acknowleged as valid and given equal weight.

Or, in other words, I guess I agree with your statement that one parent should not (in an ideal world) have authority to destroy a healthy family - and that includes the father destroying the family by bringing another child into it.

_

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

How off am I if I say that half of all abortions come down to not having the $ to raise a child? I know there are some stat-hounds around here. Give me the facts, I would appreciate them.

Stat Hound here, at your service. :ugeek:

In the United States, based on data from 2004, 73% of women having abortions cited inability to afford a baby right now as one of the reasons given for choosing abortion. [Finer, et al. 2005]

Each woman gave an average of 3.7 different reasons for chosing abortion (in a similar study done in 1987). [Torres & Forrest. 1988]

decides2dream

scb wrote:

Abuskedti wrote:

I am not unreasonable.

I agree with you and appreciate that.

However, if someone suggests one parent has authority to destroy what is a healthy family without the equal input of the other - I will disagree.

As you said, let's take a step back. You're assuming that having an abortion would destroy a healthy family. That's not a given. Many choose abortion because they believe that having another baby would destroy their already-existing healthy family. I believe this position should be acknowleged as valid and given equal weight.

Or, in other words, I guess I agree with your statement that one parent should not (in an ideal world) have authority to destroy a healthy family - and that includes the father destroying the family by bringing another child into it.

ooooooooooo...very true. reminds me of the excellent film the hours.
once upon a time when women in this country didn't have much say or access to their own choices and decisions....and sure, for many, religion holding sway over their lives, and/or their husbands....than reality of circumstance, or desire of the mother.


and again......not all situations are a 'family' in any sense in any case. 2, 15-16 year olds and an unintended pregnancy do not a healthy family make. just one of numerous examples....

Heineken Helen

perhaps if a contract regarding any potential spawn were to be drawn up and signed before any couple ever has sex... I'm guessing there'd be much less sex in this world :shock:

VINNY GOOMBA

scb wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

How off am I if I say that half of all abortions come down to not having the $ to raise a child? I know there are some stat-hounds around here. Give me the facts, I would appreciate them.

Stat Hound here, at your service. :ugeek:

In the United States, based on data from 2004, 73% of women having abortions cited inability to afford a baby right now as one of the reasons given for choosing abortion. [Finer, et al. 2005]

Each woman gave an average of 3.7 different reasons for chosing abortion (in a similar study done in 1987). [Torres & Forrest. 1988]

Even higher than expected. Thank you. This is the main fact that needs to be addressed by both sides of this incredibly tired argument.

decides2dream

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

scb wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

How off am I if I say that half of all abortions come down to not having the $ to raise a child? I know there are some stat-hounds around here. Give me the facts, I would appreciate them.

Stat Hound here, at your service. :ugeek:

In the United States, based on data from 2004, 73% of women having abortions cited inability to afford a baby right now as one of the reasons given for choosing abortion. [Finer, et al. 2005]

Each woman gave an average of 3.7 different reasons for chosing abortion (in a similar study done in 1987). [Torres & Forrest. 1988]

Even higher than expected. Thank you. This is the main fact that needs to be addressed by both sides of this incredibly tired argument.

she said ONE reason, and then added most women have about 3.7 on average. so sure, can/should be addressed.......but i think finding out what the other 2 are would be prudent as well. also, to find out which was the MOST deciding factor amongst those reasons. personally, and i don't have stats...but i would imagine more than anything, simply not wanting a pregnancy or a child at that point in life to be the biggest...amongst my own personal, unscientific research.

VINNY GOOMBA

decides2dream wrote:

she said ONE reason, and then added most women have about 3.7 on average. so sure, can/should be addressed.......but i think finding out what the other 2 are would be prudent as well. also, to find out which was the MOST deciding factor amongst those reasons. personally, and i don't have stats...but i would imagine more than anything, simply not wanting a pregnancy or a child at that point in life to be the biggest...amongst my own personal, unscientific research.

Good point. What does the survey say is the number one reason, SCB?

decides2dream

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

she said ONE reason, and then added most women have about 3.7 on average. so sure, can/should be addressed.......but i think finding out what the other 2 are would be prudent as well. also, to find out which was the MOST deciding factor amongst those reasons. personally, and i don't have stats...but i would imagine more than anything, simply not wanting a pregnancy or a child at that point in life to be the biggest...amongst my own personal, unscientific research.

Good point. What does the survey say is the number one reason, SCB?

question for you:
even if affordability were the number 1 reason, what can we do about that?
can we make having children more affordable? i mean, there are many programs in place to help single mothers. not saying they are enough, but also.....how much can we expect to do for that? idk...i'm only asking......

i think in all instances, i think truly targeting the WHYs of seeking abortion in the first place......WHY did the unintended pregnancy take place.....would do best for helping to iradicate, or at least greatly reduce, the need. i don't think any thing will 100% do away with unwanted pregnancy......but hopefully we could get close. better access to BC, more affordable, remove social/religious stigmas...develop better/easier BC...access to the morning-after pill. i mean quite honestly, i know many are against that as well...but hell, personally, i am ALL for single women having say quick and easy access to such, and then after a night of unprotected sex, or a scare with faulty BC.....easy, cheap or free access. a possible end to the possibility of a pregnancy..i mean, the day after!...seems far more preferable than abortions later on. just my own thought on it of course.

callen

Does it really matter why....first its not a child/person...just some cells and second the world is overpopulated by the human animal so a few less is a good thing. We need to get past the guilt of having abortions and need to realize we aren't special....simply "a virus with shoes".

VINNY GOOMBA

decides2dream wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

she said ONE reason, and then added most women have about 3.7 on average. so sure, can/should be addressed.......but i think finding out what the other 2 are would be prudent as well. also, to find out which was the MOST deciding factor amongst those reasons. personally, and i don't have stats...but i would imagine more than anything, simply not wanting a pregnancy or a child at that point in life to be the biggest...amongst my own personal, unscientific research.

Good point. What does the survey say is the number one reason, SCB?

question for you:
even if affordability were the number 1 reason, what can we do about that?
can we make having children more affordable? i mean, there are many programs in place to help single mothers. not saying they are enough, but also.....how much can we expect to do for that? idk...i'm only asking......

i think in all instances, i think truly targeting the WHYs of seeking abortion in the first place......WHY did the unintended pregnancy take place.....would do best for helping to iradicate, or at least greatly reduce, the need. i don't think any thing will 100% do away with unwanted pregnancy......but hopefully we could get close. better access to BC, more affordable, remove social/religious stigmas...develop better/easier BC...access to the morning-after pill. i mean quite honestly, i know many are against that as well...but hell, personally, i am ALL for single women having say quick and easy access to such, and then after a night of unprotected sex, or a scare with faulty BC.....easy, cheap or free access. a possible end to the possibility of a pregnancy..i mean, the day after!...seems far more preferable than abortions later on. just my own thought on it of course.

I hear you lound and clear. The "WHYs" are the key, every one of them. But one strikes a chord with me:

Affordability... I look at my own paycheck, the taxes taken out, and then how many umpteen times after that I get slammed by the government with taxes (sales, gas, communications, property, etc...) and what am I left with? 50% before I have to provide myself with all of my basic needs? Maybe? I didn't even count insurance, which isn't a tax per say, but is mandated by the law...

How is anyone in this country supposed to provide for their family with this going on? How many people even contemplate this 'choice,' (that maybe would have never entertained it), or go through with it, because it costs so much to live? If this is the case, you've got people on one side of this discussion afraid to love, and another side looking for options that no one wants to look for.

To me, this issue is doing nothing but dividing the people, while raping all of them and leaving them with all NO CHOICE: Big government. If there was anything that ever needed to be aborted, this is it...

I'm serious. I know there's always going to be women who don't want to carry a pregnancy to term for reasons other than "I / We can't afford a child." I know there are several sub-reasons for each. I'm sure health reasons comes in once in a blue moon, fractions of a percent scb? To me, there is a very approachable middle ground here where the number of abortions would be the same whether it were legal, or became illegal-- and no, the number is unfortunately not zero. That would be great, but I think with technology, and improvements in contraception, and a general 'awakening' of the people with regards to sexual health and behavior, it would move towards zero.

So, my answer is FREEDOM. Stop fighting wars which destroy life everywhere on earth, and cost us way too much. Stop handing things out to people who don't deserve it. (this, by the way includes handing out contraception. If you want to have sex, go get a job, and buy some trojans ) Stop spending our money in general, and let's work towards shrinking government on all levels, and once again become self-determining. Taxes, tyranny, and big goverment really do destroy society on all levels, namely families. Put money back in our pockets, let us feed ourselves and each other. I think the issue of 'affordability' will cease to exist less and less, and the number of abortions could truly start to dwindle to around the same number of "back alley" abortions that people would have if it were made illegal again-- and I don't think anyone wants to see those making a comeback.