The Life of an Abortionist

[UtahBill]

Ooooh the irony!!!!!!!!!!

Slaves were not persons when slavery was legal. They were PROPERTY.

So they were....
I saw a show on the history channel that says slavery was doomed partly because cheaper alternatives came along, such as the cotton gin and other inventions that were cheaper to have on the farm than a slave that had to eat all the time. So it was inevitable that slavery would end, much the same as the tractor ended the use of horses on the farm.
And at one time, women were considered to have less rights than slaves. One of the great thinkers of the Age of Reason said that it was wrong to enslave men, but that women should be controlled by their men. I forget which one, it was probably one of the French philosophers, but even great thinkers don't get it all right the first time around. It is good that we can dismiss the erroneous ideas and keep the good ones, and even better when we are smart enough to know the difference.

 

[1069]

Dang Bill you on a roll.

 

[UtahBill]

Dang Bill you on a roll.

too much info must unload some of it....my children say that I have way too much useless info in my head.

 

[1069]

too much info must unload some of it....my children say that I have way too much useless info in my head.

Naw, info is never useless.
Sometimes the use is just not immediately apparent.
F'rinstance, I'll bet you rock at Trivial Pursuit. Or maybe someday you could go on Jeopardy and make a lot of money.

I saw a show on the history channel that says slavery was doomed partly because cheaper alternatives came along, such as the cotton gin and other inventions that were cheaper to have on the farm than a slave that had to eat all the time. So it was inevitable that slavery would end, much the same as the tractor ended the use of horses on the farm.

I saw some disgusting racists on Geraldo or something years ago; they were saying, "We don't call blacks N!ggers", and Geraldo was like "What do you call them?" and the racists were like, "We call them obsolete farm machinery, because that's what they are."
Utterly repulsive.

 

[talloulou]

So they were....
I saw a show on the history channel that says slavery was doomed partly because cheaper alternatives came along, such as the cotton gin and other inventions that were cheaper to have on the farm than a slave that had to eat all the time. So it was inevitable that slavery would end, much the same as the tractor ended the use of horses on the farm.

So is there a point in there? I know you can't possibly be suggesting that it was irrelevant if people were pro or anti-slavery as everything would have straightened itself out in the end regardless! :rofl

And at one time, women were considered to have less rights than slaves. One of the great thinkers of the Age of Reason said that it was wrong to enslave men, but that women should be controlled by their men. I forget which one, it was probably one of the French philosophers, but even great thinkers don't get it all right the first time around. It is good that we can dismiss the erroneous ideas and keep the good ones, and even better when we are smart enough to know the difference.

Agreed.

 

[UtahBill]

So is there a point in there? I know you can't possibly be suggesting that it was irrelevant if people were pro or anti-slavery as everything would have straightened itself out in the end regardless! :rofl



Agreed.

At the risk of sounding sexist, you are clearly a woman. Even when I attempt to agree with you, you find something to be contentious about.:2razz:
The point the history channel show was making is exactly that. Slaves were very expensive to have, and once machinery was invented to replace them, the end was inevitable.

 

[new coup for you]

I can't agree with that. There were powerful social factors in slavery which far outweighed economics. slavery may have ceased its primary agricultural function but it could easily continue to exist in its household function as a symbol of social status.

 

[1069]

I can't agree with that. There were powerful social factors in slavery which far outweighed economics. slavery may have ceased its primary agricultural function but it could easily continue to exist in its household function as a symbol of social status.

I more or less agree.
You have to understand that collectively, and for several centuries, Southerners of a certain class were not raised by their parents, but by their black Mammies.
Southern women did not, as a rule, breastfeed, and formula hadn't been invented- wouldn't be until the late 1940s.
White women handed their newborns over to black servant women to raise.
Many generations of elite white Southerners were raised almost exclusively- from birth until they reached their majority- by owned blacks. For many of them, perhaps all of the warmth and affection they ever knew came from these slaves.
It's hard to fathom, but when this is all you know, when this is how you grew up, and it worked out well for you, it's hard to imagine allowing your children to be raised a different way. At least, so I'd imagine.
Aristocratic white Southern women were not prepared to suddenly start nursing their own offspring, to start raising their own offspring. It wasn't done; they didn't know how. Black women raised children- their own and everybody else's. They were good at it. What were the alternatives? Hire some "nanny", some white yankee woman? Some foreigner? Hire some white trash girl to take care of the kids? Aristocratic southern women wanted their children raised by aristocratic slaves, not by trashy white employees.
I think that as long as slavery was permitted, there would've always been house slaves, at the very least... probably even unto this day.

 

[UtahBill]

I more or less agree.
You have to understand that collectively, and for several centuries, Southerners of a certain class were not raised by their parents, but by their black Mammies.
Southern women did not, as a rule, breastfeed, and formula hadn't been invented- wouldn't be until the late 1940s.
White women handed their newborns over to black servant women to raise.
Many generations of elite white Southerners were raised almost exclusively- from birth until they reached their majority- by owned blacks. For many of them, perhaps all of the warmth and affection they ever knew came from these slaves.
It's hard to fathom, but when this is all you know, when this is how you grew up, and it worked out well for you, it's hard to imagine allowing your children to be raised a different way. At least, so I'd imagine.
Aristocratic white Southern women were not prepared to suddenly start nursing their own offspring, to start raising their own offspring. It wasn't done; they didn't know how. Black women raised children- their own and everybody else's. They were good at it. What were the alternatives? Hire some "nanny", some white yankee woman? Some foreigner? Hire some white trash girl to take care of the kids? Aristocratic southern women wanted their children raised by aristocratic slaves, not by trashy white employees.
I think that as long as slavery was permitted, there would've always been house slaves, at the very least... probably even unto this day.

That makes sense, but they would only need a few to handle the household and nanny chores, and to retain social status.

 

[new coup for you]

So it'd be ok because there would be less of them?

 

[UtahBill]

So it'd be ok because there would be less of them?

I didn't say that, are you saying that?
You can put your words in your mouth, but not mine.

 

[blastula]

Truth is not consistent and unchangeable, for even if the blind men had been able to "see" the whole elephant, the elephant changed from year to year.

If truth is not consistent and unchangeable, then all your basic mathematics and law of physics and chemistry will not be the same all the time. The knowledge would be useless. Then, Newton’s Universal Law of Gravitation is no good since according to you, truth is not consistent. Since the law of gravity is the same anytime and anywhere in the world, it proves you wrong.

Are you a person, Grannie? If you are, is that the truth? If it is the truth, would it be still true in a minute or the next day, or would you change and become a non-human? Truth is not consistent and unchangeable indeed.

If the blind men can see, then they are not blind. If they are not blind they can step back and give the description of the whole elephant at the moment in time. If year to year result is required, then certainly the seeing men must be given the opportunity to observe the elephant from year to year. In that case, the elephant’s ability to change from year to year should not escape the observation of their true seeing eyes.

One can only make decisions for his own life based on the truth as he knows it at the time. Of course, we all make errors because we cannot perceive the whole truth.

We are talking about result of research study. It’s not up to each person to decide what the study shows based on the truth as he knows it. Just because we make errors and cannot perceive the whole truth does not mean that each person have to invent his own version of “truth”.

I would prefer that my grandson learn such truths as the sun doesn't rise, and the sun is always shining, since it is the earth that is moving.

You are so predictable, Grannie. I already knew that, like your fellow abortion choice advocates, you are highly adept to perverting semantics and word play. This rebuttal was predicted ahead of time.

Of course the sun does rise according to our visual perception. Using the word “sunrise” does not mean that in the cosmic sense the sun moves or revolves around the earth. When we boil water in the pot, the steam that rises does not in anyway imply that the steam moves or revolves around the pot. It simply means the steam rises upward.

Similarly, when we look at the horizon in the morning while lying on the deck of a cruise ship in the ocean, the visual perception of what we see is through our eyes. The earth is the main reference frame to which our eyes center the visual coordinates. When the sun appears out of the horizon and casts its image through the upper visual field and onto our retina in an inverted manner, the visual information is reversed to it correct position on the visual cortex of the occipital lobe. As the time passes, the sun continues to course progressively upward away from the horizon. Correspondingly, the images of the sun in the retina and thus the visual cortex of the occipital lobe also track the same movement of the sun going upward from the horizon towards the sky. In sunset, the visual image in our eyes is that the sun goes down towards the horizon.

Instead of being wordy and technical, ordinary folks and laypersons, except Grannie here, simply use a single word “sunrise” and “sunset” to say the same thing. Furthermore, you know very well that the reference to sunrise and sunset is not about sunrise and sunset per se, but the direction in which they rise and set from the east to the west. This information is useful and true since the beginning of human history that helps our ancestors to navigate and make headway for survival around the earth.

Certainly you can take the sun as the frame of reference. But, you and your grandson do not live on the surface of the sun. So, it is useless a knowledge for his survival skill if he were to get lost somewhere on the surface of the earth. Besides, if you want to get technical, the sun and its solar system do not stay still. They revolve around the Milky way. The Milky way, the stars and all the heavenly bodies all moves away from each other.

If somebody with a car sideswipes your car while it is park on the street, do you agree with his statement to the police that your car was moving forward since accordingly the earth is always spinning and moving in space? Isn’t that your argument here?

True, which is why it is wise to listen to others' viewpoints on truth, since we are incapable of perceiving the whole elephant and how the elephant might change over time.

Are you kidding me, Grannie? Would you surely listen to the viewpoint of your banker’s perceived truth and accept that you have $0 balance in your account despite your two deposits of $100 + $200? Is it really wise, Grannie? I mean, Really?

I am sure there must be a white house in the state of Washington somewhere, so the pedestrian quite possibly told the truth as he perceived it.

I’m sure you know what I’m talking about despite your attempt to being obtuse to evade logic.

 

[Jerry]

I didn't say that, are you saying that?
You can put your words in your mouth, but not mine.

I've got sompin right here that you can both put your mouth........CANDY!

 

[blastula]

Error: post removed due to wrong thread.

 

[doughgirl]

“Truth is not consistent and unchangeable, for even if the blind men had been able to "see" the whole elephant, the elephant changed from year to year.”

So many rapists are not doing anything wrong?

Real truth does not change.

Abortion will always be what it is. It is killing a living human being. That is fact, it is the truth. This truth can’t change with time, or it would have by now and no one today would be opposed to abortion.


Grannie you think truth is only an opinion. Your reality, your truth is based entirely on opinion. You claim that absolute objective moral truth doesn’t exist….but truth has objective existence and it has universal application.
Example.... We might have no fault insurance today……but someone was at fault, someones actions caused the accident. However I am sure you will come back and say that no fact is at all times and places true. That we can’t ever know what really happened becauses everyones view is different. For you then truth is opinion. I say truth is truth and it exists.

Does the relativist care about what science says, what religion says or what historical truths there might be? No. For them there are no moral absolutes, no objective ethical right and wrong. That’s why you think that for some abortion might be wrong and for some might be right. Yet you deny the woman an abortion in later terms because of your opinion that life automatically starts then.



Grannie,

“One can only make decisions for his own life based on the truth as he knows it at the time. Of course, we all make errors because we cannot perceive the whole truth.”

But you don’t even try to find the truth. Your a relativist. The pursuit of any truth is an exercise in futility for you. Or you would take what medical science says about abortion and what it does and your opinion would change. Without criteria to determine truth, relativism fails. You hold the opinion that woman should be able to kill their unborn and its based on your opinion alone, not the truth. For you the truth does not matter, its the rights of the woman to kill that is important.

“I would prefer that my grandson learn such truths as the sun doesn't rise, and the sun is always shining, since it is the earth that is moving.”

Do you also teach him that Hitler, Pol Pot or Sadam had valid and logical reasons for doing what they did? Do you also teach him that the person that believes in democracy should also be tolerant of the fascist’s repression? Is fascism and liberal democracy equally true? How do you decide what is right and wrong to teach him. All based on opinion? What’s true for you might not be true for someone else?

“True, which is why it is wise to listen to others' viewpoints on truth, since we are incapable of perceiving the whole elephant and how the elephant might change over time.”

Truth does not change. Is forcing men and women into slavery right or wrong? Is murdering and raping and child molestation right or wrong? How about stealing? If you think its all based on opinion, (the eyes of the beholder) then who are you to tell anyone doing any of these things, that they are wrong. Which one of these have changed over time?

“so the pedestrian quite possibly told the truth as he perceived it.”

This is exactly why our society is going down the tubes….people who hold to your value system, its illogical. I don’t want to live in your world. A world where truth changes based on opinion. Can you say that nothing is universally true and then hold the opinion that your view is universally true? Your saying that relativism is the only truth. You falsify yourself if you do that. You apply your view to everyone but yourself. You want your grandson to believe your views.

Sorry but I don’t buy the crap that no system of logic is superior to another. Truth is the truth.

Mother Teresa said that if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another. What is wrong then with using violence to get what we want?

Grannie, you think its morally wrong to impose your values on someone else and vise versa. And in the case of abortion, no one should deny a woman the right to kill her unborn. We simply shouldn’t do this. You say that as a pro-lifer I'm wrong for trying to force pro-life issues (abortion) to women, I have no rightto be anti-abortion. But then who are you to impose YOUR morality on those who want to impose their morality on others?

If moral relativism is true GRannie, what basis is there for saying that genoide is wrong…. for saying that racism or sexism or terrorism or torture or rape is wrong.


UtahBill,

“I don't want to pay for abortions with my tax dollars, tho, at least for those that have nothing to do with rape, incest, of non-viable fetuses.”

But you said abortion was legal. Isn’t what’s legal moral in our society?
Why don’t you want to pay for some poor womans right to kill her unborn? Is there something wrong with abortion Bill?

“I almost had to sit on a jury for another where the mom was on multiple drugs and gave birth to a child that is little more than a drooling vegetable. She abandoned it and the state now pays for his care and keeping. He has no quality of life. Perhaps we should allow the expectant mothers to play God on their own, and pay whatever price in the hereafter if God chooses to assess penalties for their actions. But the Doctors should not be playing God on their own, as many have done in the past, either during the pregnancy, or after.
Aside from God, and the women involved, not one of us here should attempt to play God on this issue.”

What did this woman do that was wrong? If you say that she should be able to kill her unborn then why shouldn’t she have the right to take whatever drugs that she wants to take. Our country doesn’t consider the unborn anything, so you tell me what she did that was so wrong? You say no one should play God. What is the abortionist doing? He is taking a life, stopping a heart. He is both judge and jury and killer. If he isn’t taking the role of God then I don’t know what he is doing.

I saw some disgusting racists on Geraldo or something years ago; they were saying, "We don't call blacks N!ggers", and Geraldo was like "What do you call them?" and the racists were like, "We call them obsolete farm machinery, because that's what they are."

Utterly repulsive.”

Why how dare you judge them 1069. :rofl Why, is the truth the way they see it any different then the truth the way you see it? No truth? yea right.
Grannie would defend their right, right Grannie?

 

[Americanadian]

I see this topic in two different aspects:

I see Abortion as something that should be used in cases such as rape, incest/molestation or life threatening circumstances. In this case, while unfortunate, I am sure others would agree it would be the best thing for all parties involved. Those cited would be seen as being impregnated against their will or in the case of the life threatening aspect, unable to carry a pregnancy longterm.

However, when abortion is used by teens who were engaging in sex unbeknownst to their parents, and therefore use abortion as a way to avoid getting caught; or by adults who would be "inconvenienced" by a pregnancy and decide on an abortion. They chose to engage in the act of sex and while they may not have intentionally planned on the pregnancy, the purpose of sex is to procreate and entertainment is secondary. Essentially, noone should be engaging in sex unless both parties are committed to each other and both will bear the responsibility in case of pregnancy. I am sure some will disagree and that is fine.

The downfall of my opinion is that there is no way to adequately address the true intentions of the pregnant mother. In order to rule out the pregnancies from those who chose to engage in sex and are looking to alleviate their responsibility, one would need regulations stating the patient requires proof of a rape, molestation or a life threatening situation.

This is the most sensible solution I can think of which would appease both sides. I believe people should have freedom of choice, and murder is one of the acts expressed in freedom of choice (this is not referring to abortion in particular but murder collectively), but I am also aware of the negative aspects regarding abortions and how it affects the emotional & mental well being of a woman after the abortion was conducted. As a nation, we shouldn't be conducting abortions as a convenience so people can avoid assuming responsibility. Sure some of the cosmetic companies and pharmaceutical companies benefit from the wholesale availability of fetuses but it is reprehensible and was never meant to be a business.

Personally, I see it as a responsibility issue.

I am interested in anyone's opinion on this matter. As you can see, I am more in the middle of this issue and I believe a compromise is needed by both sides in order to reach a solution.

 

[1069]

I see Abortion as something that should be used in cases such as rape, incest/molestation or life threatening circumstances. In this case, while unfortunate, I am sure others would agree it would be the best thing for all parties involved.

Well, no, others don't categorically agree. Most of the prolifers on this particular forum do not feel that abortion is a woman's right in cases of rape.
Most prolifers I've encountered in real life don't think so, either.

In order to rule out the pregnancies from those who chose to engage in sex and are looking to alleviate their responsibility, one would need regulations stating the patient requires proof of a rape, molestation or a life threatening situation.

What sort of "proof" do you have in mind?
There is a limited window of time in which an abortion can be performed; the longer one waits, the riskier, more invasive, less accessible, and more expensive the procedure becomes.
It is not feasible to deny a pregnant rape victim the right to end her pregnancy until after her attacker has been apprehended, brought to trial, and found guilty in a court of law.
It would be too late for an abortion, by that time.
Even if the matter were somehow expedited, it would still be too late.
Then what?
Do we force rape victims to gestate and birth the spawn of their assailants, but allow them the option of retroactively killing their attackers' born offspring, in the event the rapist is found guilty?

:roll:

 

[OKgrannie]

I see this topic in two different aspects:

I see Abortion as something that should be used in cases such as rape, incest/molestation or life threatening circumstances. In this case, while unfortunate, I am sure others would agree it would be the best thing for all parties involved. Those cited would be seen as being impregnated against their will or in the case of the life threatening aspect, unable to carry a pregnancy longterm.

It may very well be the best thing for all parties involved, but those pesky women just want to decide for themselves, and some may choose to continue a pregnancy that has bad beginnings. Some women even choose to endanger their own lives to give birth, and however foolish I may think that is, it is their choice.

However, when abortion is used by teens who were engaging in sex unbeknownst to their parents, and therefore use abortion as a way to avoid getting caught; or by adults who would be "inconvenienced" by a pregnancy and decide on an abortion. They chose to engage in the act of sex and while they may not have intentionally planned on the pregnancy, the purpose of sex is to procreate and entertainment is secondary. Essentially, noone should be engaging in sex unless both parties are committed to each other and both will bear the responsibility in case of pregnancy. I am sure some will disagree and that is fine.

Now that you have decided under what circumstances people SHOULD or SHOULD NOT be having sex, and you have decided what the proper course of action is for them should a pregnancy result, I'm sure you have some dandy ideas on how they SHOULD support the resulting offspring. And more ideas, I presume, on how such irresponsible people will suddenly become responsible enough to successfully rear children.

The downfall of my opinion is that there is no way to adequately address the true intentions of the pregnant mother. In order to rule out the pregnancies from those who chose to engage in sex and are looking to alleviate their responsibility, one would need regulations stating the patient requires proof of a rape, molestation or a life threatening situation.

Sure, just what we all need, more government involvement in our most personal private lives at a time of difficulty. Tell me, just how does a woman who was raped at knife point or the point of gun, IOW she is not bruised and battered, actually prove she was raped?

This is the most sensible solution I can think of which would appease
both sides. I believe people should have freedom of choice, and murder is one of the acts expressed in freedom of choice (this is not referring to abortion in particular but murder collectively), but I am also aware of the negative aspects regarding abortions and how it affects the emotional & mental well being of a woman after the abortion was conducted. As a nation, we shouldn't be conducting abortions as a convenience so people can avoid assuming responsibility. Sure some of the cosmetic companies and pharmaceutical companies benefit from the wholesale availability of fetuses but it is reprehensible and was never meant to be a business.

Our nation doesn't conduct abortions, convenient or otherwise. Women choose to have abortions regardless of whatever the "nation" has to say about it. Your "awareness" of the negative aspects regarding abortion and the "emotional and mental well-being of a woman" must have been obtained from "pro-life" web sites, because that is hogwash. Abortion isn't a means of avoiding responsibility, it is a responsible act by a woman who is most able to judge that, that is the woman involved. Furthermore, I think you will be surprised to see how many will be appeased by your solution, which is, in fact, almost guaranteed to infuriate all women.

Personally, I see it as a responsibility issue.

I am interested in anyone's opinion on this matter. As you can see, I am more in the middle of this issue and I believe a compromise is needed by both sides in order to reach a solution.

How about we compromise by allowing you to make decisions regarding YOUR OWN body, and you butt out of other women's business regarding their own bodies?

 

[Americanadian]

Well, no, others don't categorically agree. Most of the prolifers on this particular forum do not feel that abortion is a woman's right in cases of rape.
Most prolifers I've encountered in real life don't think so, either.

Well that is their problem. It is up to the woman to decide what to do. I was just saying that rape and the other things I mentioned in addition would be justifiable reasons for an abortion.

What sort of "proof" do you have in mind?

Well, just the physical evidence and the apparent trauma they are suffering from would be enough evidence in my opinion.

There is a limited window of time in which an abortion can be performed; the longer one waits, the riskier, more invasive, less accessible, and more expensive the procedure becomes.
It is not feasible to deny a pregnant rape victim the right to end her pregnancy until after her attacker has been apprehended, brought to trial, and found guilty in a court of law.
It would be too late for an abortion, by that time.
Even if the matter were somehow expedited, it would still be too late.
Then what?
Do we force rape victims to gestate and birth the spawn of their assailants, but allow them the option of retroactively killing their attackers' born offspring, in the event the rapist is found guilty?

:roll:

I think it should be determined asap. Rape victims usually bear the trauma and physical damage from a rape. I'm not an expert on rape victims and I base it on what I have learned so far.
Again, it is up to the woman to decide if she will persue an abortion or not given the circumstances.

 

[Americanadian]

It may very well be the best thing for all parties involved, but those pesky women just want to decide for themselves, and some may choose to continue a pregnancy that has bad beginnings. Some women even choose to endanger their own lives to give birth, and however foolish I may think that is, it is their choice.

That is correct. However, I think it is equally foolish for a woman to undergo an abortion just for convenience sake. That is my opinion though and about as irrelevant as yours when pertaining to another person's circumstances.

Now that you have decided under what circumstances people SHOULD or SHOULD NOT be having sex, and you have decided what the proper course of action is for them should a pregnancy result, I'm sure you have some dandy ideas on how they SHOULD support the resulting offspring. And more ideas, I presume, on how such irresponsible people will suddenly become responsible enough to successfully rear children.

Ultimately yes, if people want to avoid having unwanted pregnancies, they should refrain from having sex. After all, that is what sex was intended for. If people could turn the ability to get pregnant on or off at their leisure, it would render my point moot. Since we cannot do any such thing, it is very risky to engage in sexual relations without considering the repercussions.

Sure, just what we all need, more government involvement in our most personal private lives at a time of difficulty. Tell me, just how does a woman who was raped at knife point or the point of gun, IOW she is not bruised and battered, actually prove she was raped?

Physical evidence and trauma. It isn't difficult for professionals to determine the damage rendered by a rapist. I wasn't referring to the government getting involved at all. It would be a determination by the medical profession as to whether an abortion is required or not.

Our nation doesn't conduct abortions, convenient or otherwise. Women choose to have abortions regardless of whatever the "nation" has to say about it. Your "awareness" of the negative aspects regarding abortion and the "emotional and mental well-being of a woman" must have been obtained from "pro-life" web sites, because that is hogwash.

You can spout all you want. FYI I have never visited any "pro-Life" websites and my experience is based on the women I know personally who had abortions. And multiple ones at that. To this day, they still think about things relating to their choices. Have you ever examined the statistics of women who had abortions? It isn't a loaded question so spare me the acrimony. It is a genuine question.

Abortion isn't a means of avoiding responsibility, it is a responsible act by a woman who is most able to judge that, that is the woman involved. Furthermore, I think you will be surprised to see how many will be appeased by your solution, which is, in fact, almost guaranteed to infuriate all women.

Depends on the woman I suppose. IMO, a woman whom takes the wishes of her mate into consideration before finalizing her decision is commendable.

How about we compromise by allowing you to make decisions regarding YOUR OWN body, and you butt out of other women's business regarding their own bodies?

Is a baby solely the woman's? Sure, the baby grows inside of her after conception, but there would be no baby without a man involved. Both biological parents should have a say in the matter. If a woman wants to avoid such confrontations, they should think of those things in advance. If the man has fled the scene leaving the woman to fend on her own, then she has the right to make the decision on her own.

I can tell you are an avid proponent of pro-abortion. I can feel the acrimony from here. LOL...
Look lady, I have kids of my own and am married. I am not too worried about what people do on their own. It is their choice.
I can also understand how you regard abortion as an act of "responsibility" in the sense that it doesn't burden society with more kids in foster homes, orphanages, or left homeless or starving. It is better to spare people in that sense.

I still feel that an abortion shouldn't be used as a form of birth control. If people want to screw around and they don't want to risk an unwanted pregnancy, get "fixed". That would be the more responsible thing to do.


Now a question for Grannie: Have you ever experienced an abortion?
Another question: Have you given birth to any children?

Thanks.

 

[1069]

Now a question for Grannie: Have you ever experienced an abortion?
Another question: Have you given birth to any children?

My feelings on the issue are identical to Granny's, and my answers to the above question are yes (one) and yes (two).

I'll answer for answer for Granny as well, while I'm at it: no, and yes.

Ultimately yes, if people want to avoid having unwanted pregnancies, they should refrain from having sex. After all, that is what sex was intended for.

Pfft, whatever. I'm married, and I was when i had my abortion.
I don't plan to quit having sex, and if I get pregnant again, I'll have another abortion.
At the time I had my unwanted pregnancy, I already had two small children.
My husband would've divorced me if I had said, "Well, we don't want any more kids, so we're never having sex again. From now on, this is an abstinent marriage."
I would've divorced him if he had told me that.
Would that have been better for my children than me terminating the unwanted pregnancy?

 

[Felicity]

My feelings on the issue are identical to Granny's, and my answers to the above question are yes (one) and yes (two).

I'll answer for answer for Granny as well, while I'm at it: no, and yes.




Pfft, whatever. I'm married, and I was when i had my abortion.
I don't plan to quit having sex, and if I get pregnant again, I'll have another abortion.
At the time I had my unwanted pregnancy, I already had two small children.
My husband would've divorced me if I had said, "Well, we don't want any more kids, so we're never having sex again. From now on, this is an abstinent marriage."
I would've divorced him if he had told me that.
Would that have been better for my children than me terminating the unwanted pregnancy?

Kinda moot--you divorced anyway. Maybe things could have been different with different choices...or not. But it's still moot. You divorced the father of your children despite your abortion and continuing the sex. Yeah...you're married...NOT to the father of your kids (kinda let that fact slip by, eh? I guess because it shoots your point in the hiney. :mrgreen: )

 

[OKgrannie]

That is correct. However, I think it is equally foolish for a woman to undergo an abortion just for convenience sake. That is my opinion though and about as irrelevant as yours when pertaining to another person's circumstances.

"Convenience" implies something trivial and unimportant. Of the multitude of reasons given for abortion, none of them are trivial and unimportant. Not that any of us are in a position to judge what is important to someone else.

Ultimately yes, if people want to avoid having unwanted pregnancies, they should refrain from having sex. After all, that is what sex was intended for. If people could turn the ability to get pregnant on or off at their leisure, it would render my point moot. Since we cannot do any such thing, it is very risky to engage in sexual relations without considering the repercussions.

People will NOT stop having sex, no matter how many times it is said or how many abstinence-only sex ed classes are taught. People will take that risk no matter how high it is, just as women will risk illegal abortions no matter how dangerous they are.

Physical evidence and trauma. It isn't difficult for professionals to determine the damage rendered by a rapist. I wasn't referring to the government getting involved at all. It would be a determination by the medical profession as to whether an abortion is required or not.

If a woman is raped at knife-or-gun point, how can it be distinguished from consentual sex?

You can spout all you want. FYI I have never visited any "pro-Life" websites and my experience is based on the women I know personally who had abortions. And multiple ones at that. To this day, they still think about things relating to their choices. Have you ever examined the statistics of women who had abortions? It isn't a loaded question so spare me the acrimony. It is a genuine question.

Planned Parenthood - The Emotional Effects of Induced Abortion
"Research studies indicate that emotional responses to legally induced abortion are largely positive. They also indicate that emotional problems resulting from abortion are rare and less frequent than those following childbirth (Adler, 1989; Kero et al., 2004). ...

The truth is that most studies in the last 25 years have found abortion to be a relatively benign procedure in terms of emotional effect — except when pre-abortion emotional problems exist or when a wanted pregnancy is terminated,....
Serious psychological disturbances after abortion are less frequent than after childbirth (Brewer, 1977; Gilchrist et al., 1995). For example, rates of "postpartum psychosis" are reported as high as 40 per 10,000 and as low as 11 per 10,000 — 0.4-0.11 percent. Reports of the rates of severe psychological disturbance after abortion range from 18 per 10,000 to as low as two per 10,000 — 0.18-0.02 percent (David et al., 1985; Gaynes et al., 2005; Robinson & Stewart, 1993).
Researchers suggest that the predictors of severe psychological disturbances after abortion are
delays in seeking abortion
medical or genetic indications for abortion in wanted pregnancies
severe pre-existing or concurrent psychiatric illness
conflict over abortion
(Lazarus, 1985)
Rates of "postpartum psychosis" have been shown to decrease in societies that legalize abortion (David et al., 1985).
Emotional Reactions to Adoption

The psychological responses to abortion are far less serious than those experienced by women bringing their unwanted pregnancy to term and relinquishing the child for adoption (Sachdev, "

Depends on the woman I suppose. IMO, a woman whom takes the wishes of her mate into consideration before finalizing her decision is commendable.

Is a baby solely the woman's? Sure, the baby grows inside of her after conception, but there would be no baby without a man involved. Both biological parents should have a say in the matter. If a woman wants to avoid such confrontations, they should think of those things in advance. If the man has fled the scene leaving the woman to fend on her own, then she has the right to make the decision on her own.

If a woman wants to consult with the potential father, it is her right to do so, but it is also her right to NOT consult with him if she chooses. If she chooses not to, it is probably because of a good reason.

I can tell you are an avid proponent of pro-abortion. I can feel the acrimony from here. LOL...
Look lady, I have kids of my own and am married. I am not too worried about what people do on their own. It is their choice.
I can also understand how you regard abortion as an act of "responsibility" in the sense that it doesn't burden society with more kids in foster homes, orphanages, or left homeless or starving. It is better to spare people in that sense.

I still feel that an abortion shouldn't be used as a form of birth control. If people want to screw around and they don't want to risk an unwanted pregnancy, get "fixed". That would be the more responsible thing to do.


Now a question for Grannie: Have you ever experienced an abortion?
Another question: Have you given birth to any children?

Thanks.

I am a proponent of choice. I don't think government has a right to interfere with an individual woman's choice, but if it does, if government has the right to deny abortion to woman, they also have a right to require it. Don't you find that scary? If you have a daughter, consider the circumstances in which she might want or need an abortion someday, and whether you would want government interference in that private personal decision. Please understand that while getting "fixed" is the most reliable method of birth control at the present, it is not 100%, and it cannot be considered reversible. 1069 is correct, I have not had an abortion, and I have had children....how do you think I got to be a grannie?

 

[Americanadian]

My feelings on the issue are identical to Granny's, and my answers to the above question are yes (one) and yes (two).

I'll answer for answer for Granny as well, while I'm at it: no, and yes.




Pfft, whatever. I'm married, and I was when i had my abortion.
I don't plan to quit having sex, and if I get pregnant again, I'll have another abortion.
At the time I had my unwanted pregnancy, I already had two small children.
My husband would've divorced me if I had said, "Well, we don't want any more kids, so we're never having sex again. From now on, this is an abstinent marriage."
I would've divorced him if he had told me that.
Would that have been better for my children than me terminating the unwanted pregnancy?

I don't expect married people to refrain from having sex. It would be absurd.
However, if you don't plan on having any more kids, would it not be more reasonable for your husband to go in for a vasectomy and yourself a tubal ligation? I went in for a vasectomy to spare my wife the tubal ligation. I will ensure I get tested annually as well to keep tabs on everything. If both partners go in for surgical sterilization, it will surely minimize the risk of pregnancy for sure, would it not?

People who aren't committed to one another and engage in promiscuous relationships is a different matter. Again, it is their choice of course, but if they do not want children they should opt for surgical sterilization or abstain from sexual encounters. Some younger men are opting for vasectomies before having any children whatsoever, which is interesting.

 

[Americanadian]

"Convenience" implies something trivial and unimportant. Of the multitude of reasons given for abortion, none of them are trivial and unimportant. Not that any of us are in a position to judge what is important to someone else.

That is true. So no matter the circumstances, you believe it is acceptable for an abortion? Even if "convenience" is one of them? I personally know a young woman (teenager at the time. I was 19) who used abortion as a method of remaining pregnancy free. I'm sorry but I still believe some people do have the attitude if they do happen to become pregnant, "oh well, I can always have an abortion". Is that not a form of "convenience" which alleviates a person of any responsibility for their sexual conduct?

People will NOT stop having sex, no matter how many times it is said or how many abstinence-only sex ed classes are taught. People will take that risk no matter how high it is, just as women will risk illegal abortions no matter how dangerous they are.

That is true also. I imagine it is near impossible to be abstinent in North America considering the amount of skin and soft porn littering every convenience store, gas station, malls etc. However, it still doesn't undermine the fact of it being the main problem; people choosing to engage in sex outside of the confines of a secure relationship. Not that society helps the matter in any form. Society's definition of "sexy" is defined as how much skin a woman can expose when it has more to do with personality and body language, IMO. Society foments sexual misconduct and encourages people to focus on sex as the integral part of a relationship when it was only meant to be the bonus of a good relationship and for pro-creation.

As a result of the "relationship" being sacrificed for quick, easy and convenient sex, of course the risks will get higher. We all know there is a good chance of pregnancy if we have sex. STD's are another consideration which seems to go unnoticed. It almost appears as if people cannot control their sex drives in order to make a rational choice.

If a woman is raped at knife-or-gun point, how can it be distinguished from consentual sex?

Forced entry will do damage physically. From what I have read a woman's body releases a natural chemical when she is engaged in a mutual and willing sexual encounter. I will see if I can find the reference for that. If a doctor examines a woman who suffered a rape, not only should there be psychological symptoms, there would be physical evidence as well. I think rape is the lowest form of depravity along with molestation and incest. The sick perpetrators should all be dealt with in a manner which they can never ruin another innocent person. And now I'm off topic. :shock:

Planned Parenthood - The Emotional Effects of Induced Abortion
"Research studies indicate that emotional responses to legally induced abortion are largely positive. They also indicate that emotional problems resulting from abortion are rare and less frequent than those following childbirth (Adler, 1989; Kero et al., 2004). ...

The truth is that most studies in the last 25 years have found abortion to be a relatively benign procedure in terms of emotional effect — except when pre-abortion emotional problems exist or when a wanted pregnancy is terminated,....
Serious psychological disturbances after abortion are less frequent than after childbirth (Brewer, 1977; Gilchrist et al., 1995). For example, rates of "postpartum psychosis" are reported as high as 40 per 10,000 and as low as 11 per 10,000 — 0.4-0.11 percent. Reports of the rates of severe psychological disturbance after abortion range from 18 per 10,000 to as low as two per 10,000 — 0.18-0.02 percent (David et al., 1985; Gaynes et al., 2005; Robinson & Stewart, 1993).
Researchers suggest that the predictors of severe psychological disturbances after abortion are delays in seeking abortion
medical or genetic indications for abortion in wanted pregnancies
severe pre-existing or concurrent psychiatric illness
conflict over abortion
(Lazarus, 1985)
Rates of "postpartum psychosis" have been shown to decrease in societies that legalize abortion (David et al., 1985).
Emotional Reactions to Adoption

The psychological responses to abortion are far less serious than those experienced by women bringing their unwanted pregnancy to term and relinquishing the child for adoption (Sachdev, "

Interesting. Again, ensuring one doesn't become pregnant would be more beneficial all around. It takes two to make it happen. Therefore, both people should be responsible if something occurs. Of course, I tend to be more responsible than most people so I find it difficult to understand why people choose to run such a risk if they do not desire children initially.

If a woman wants to consult with the potential father, it is her right to do so, but it is also her right to NOT consult with him if she chooses. If she chooses not to, it is probably because of a good reason.

If the man is unaware of the pregnancy and doesn't want to have anything to do with the responsibility of raising a child, then it would be better if the woman decided on her own. I feel the circumstances would be different if the man wanted the child and was committed to raising the baby. Personally, if I was with a woman and she became pregnant unexpectedly, and she chose to have an abortion performed without at least discussing the matter, I would take that as a betrayal of trust. Yes it is her body and ultimately she has the final word. However, the man helped conceive the child, therefore his opinion shouldn't be disregarded. If it were to happen to me I wouldn't stay with the woman. Keeping secrets from the one whom you love isn't exactly exacerbating trust in any way.

I am a proponent of choice. I don't think government has a right to interfere with an individual woman's choice, but if it does, if government has the right to deny abortion to woman, they also have a right to require it. Don't you find that scary? If you have a daughter, consider the circumstances in which she might want or need an abortion someday, and whether you would want government interference in that private personal decision. Please understand that while getting "fixed" is the most reliable method of birth control at the present, it is not 100%, and it cannot be considered reversible.

When it pertains to the government, I completely agree. I don't want them dictating anything to people or imposing/preventing them from an abortion considering the person's circumstances. The government has already compromised the health and well being of America. Their lax policies regarding the food in America is reprehensible and the drugs they permit the FDA peddle to the populace is criminal.

1069 is correct, I have not had an abortion, and I have had children....how do you think I got to be a grannie?

LOL...that was rather silly of me. :3oops:

I have a relative who had two abortions. One when she was 18 and not married. The other when she was married with multiple children already. Both decisions were influenced by a fear of what other people would think of her.
Surprisingly, her mother condoned the first abortion so it wouldn't tarnish the family name. The last one when she was married she decided to do so people wouldn't comment about her having so many kids.

Sad isn't it? People get so caught up with other people's opinions it causes them to make decisions they normally wouldn't make. Her case is further plagued by dreams of the children who were taken with feelings of remorse and insecurity in addition. She hasn't admitted any suicidal thoughts but I have read some other women do in fact take their lives after an abortion because of the guilt and anguish they feel. And these feelings are not because of anything society says, because it isn't against the law to have an abortion. I believe it is the maternal aspect of a woman which causes the anguish. Their "instinct" informs them of their loss. Of course, this doesn't happen to every woman. Some won't discuss their experience. Some may walk out the door and never give it another thought, happy to be free from pregnancy or worrying about the expense of raising a child.

Anyone ever use the "morning after pill"? I've never researched it and I'm not knowledgable about any aspect of it. Perhaps women should use it on a regular basis in addition to their other preventative measures. I'm usually not a proponent for drugs but in this case, it would be better than having an unwanted pregnancy or submitting to an abortion.

This is a tough subject really. I advocate for a person to have the freedom to choose and I also believe the government shouldn't begin wielding enough power to tell their constituents what they should do with their own bodies.
However, I also feel that humanity has stooped to a level of barbaric proportions when we have people willing to perform abortions for reasons other than what I previously asserted (rape etc).

There's just no easy answer I'm afraid.