The Abortion Debate in America - A New Ambivalence

[M.Dancer]

As in why have you not taken a foster child out of the system and adopted him/her; why have you not adopted a child with special needs; why have you not adopted a child from a third world nation? What are your reasons? I'd really like to know.

False dilemma. In otherwords, if you haven't "taken" a foster child....are you actively ensuring they are aborted?

- firsthand what's involved in being pregnant

I know intimately, if only second hand. I went through months of bedrest my wife was ordered, I went through the hemorages, the emergency visits, the ambulances.....I went through running to find a doctor, cleaning up blood, urine and vomit.........so I think I can safely selve what you think I know firsthand.

- what's involved in going through an unwanted pregnancy

- what's involved in having an unwanted child

I know what's involved....it's the capacity not to love and cherish.

- what it's like not having the means/resources to raise a child

Wow...do you have some dark hole you're reaching in for these assumptions? Are you actually trying to suggest that all abortions are about not having cash or that I don't have experiance with poverty? Do you also have a 1 800 number where you tell fortunes?

- what it's like to be hassled by your boss for calling in sick due to a pregnancy, much less lose your job because of it

- what it's like to be passed over for a promotion because of being pregnant/having to put the child first

That would definately be an inconvience and a valid reason for ending a life. Because you might not get a promotion. A definate downer.

- Last but not least, in spite of your claim, you don't know why "most women" choose abortion.

Given that I have never made a claim that I know why most women have abortions, I can state categorical you don't know either.

[Guest American Woman]

False dilemma. In otherwords, if you haven't "taken" a foster child....are you actively ensuring they are aborted?

I'm not criticizing those who don't choose to "nurture a life" over 'having that life end' as you are. You are the one saying how, except for the "inconvenience" it would cause, a woman should choose to "nurture a life." So I'll ask you again. Why aren't you? If you are all about saving a life over "inconvenience," why aren't you adopting a child who needs you? There are so many out there who need someone. This is what I truly don't get about those who get all critical about women not choosing to have and raise a child they admittedly don't want. I take it you don't want an adopted child. A lot of people feel that way. So children die. Children who are already on this earth. Because you choose not to "nurture a life" a child will die. It's that simple. Frankly I don't care to see more unwanted children brought into this world when there are so many who are already here.

I know intimately, if only second hand. I went through months of bedrest my wife was ordered, I went through the hemorages, the emergency visits, the ambulances.....I went through running to find a doctor, cleaning up blood, urine and vomit.........so I think I can safely selve what you think I know firsthand.

You were correct in your first sentence when you said you know intimately "if only second hand." You don't know firsthand any more than a doctor knows what it's like to lose a leg because he was the one who performed the surgery. It's two very different things watching and aiding someone and actually BEING that someone.

I know what's involved....it's the capacity not to love and cherish.

No, you don't know. The fact that you can make it such a simple black and white judgement of "the capacity not to love and cherish" says it all. Not bringing a child into the world unwanted, or without two parents, or without the means to support it, etc., isn't "the capacity not to love and cherish," it's being responsible.

Wow...do you have some dark hole you're reaching in for these assumptions? Are you actually trying to suggest that all abortions are about not having cash or that I don't have experiance with poverty? Do you also have a 1 800 number where you tell fortunes?

Did I say "all abortions" were about not having enough money? No, I didn't. I didn't even say "most." It was one situation in a series of situations. You are the one who has determined that just about "all" aborions are about "inconvenience," so I'll turn your remarkably stupid question about the 800 number back at you.

That would definately be an inconvience and a valid reason for ending a life. Because you might not get a promotion. A definate downer.

It may be more than an "inconvenience" if one's ability to live on their paycheck depends on getting promoted/moving up the ladder.

Given that I have never made a claim that I know why most women have abortions, I can state categorical you don't know either.

I never said I did know. I've never claimed to know. You, however, HAVE made a claim to know why most women have abortions: because it would be inconvenient to have the baby.

quote name='M.Dancer' date='Oct 2 2007, 10:01 AM'

I think you are making out that every woman who choses an abortion does so because she has no choice. Some don't but most do. Amd most chose convinence over life.

So "most have a choice." And "most chose convenience over life." Tell me again how you have never made a claim that you know why most women have abortions.

Edited October 3, 2007 by American Woman

[fellowtraveller]

This is what I truly don't get about those who get all critical about women not choosing to have and raise a child they admittedly don't want

Simple. It's what the Church teaches. The long term effects of religious indocrination are rooted very deeply in victims psyches. The Church is all about control. They want your womb to dance to their tune. Guilt is the weapon employed.

[ScottSA]

I have two children I know what's involved in raising children. I think you are making out that every woman who choses an abortion does so because she has no choice. Some don't but most do. Amd most chose convinence over life.

So you know what's involved in raising children. What you don't know is:

- firsthand what's involved in being pregnant

- what's involved in going through an unwanted pregnancy

- what's involved in having an unwanted child

- what it's like not having the means/resources to raise a child

- what it's like to be hassled by your boss for calling in sick due to a pregnancy, much less lose your job because of it

- what it's like to be passed over for a promotion because of being pregnant/having to put the child first

- what it's like to raise a child on your own

- what it's like to not be able to give your child all that you wanted to give him/her, much less the basics- including a father.

- what it's like to be condemned by society for giving birth to a child you cannot afford without public assistance

- what it's like not to be able to afford to give your child the health care he/she needs

- Last but not least, in spite of your claim, you don't know why "most women" choose abortion. You don't know their finances. You don't know their ability to parent a child. You don't know if they have support from the baby's father. You don't know the first thing about their lives/ their decision.

I have to ask all of you who are so concerned about "saving a life"-- since there are millions of children already on this earth who have no parents, who will surely die, why are you not out advocating saving their lives and or "nurturing" a child who needs it? As in why have you not taken a foster child out of the system and adopted him/her; why have you not adopted a child with special needs; why have you not adopted a child from a third world nation? What are your reasons? I'd really like to know.

Do you know what it's like to kill someone? What if that's what abortion is? Does the list of inconveniences you list above really matter in the face of that?

[Guest American Woman]

Do you know what it's like to kill someone? What if that's what abortion is? Does the list of inconveniences you list above really matter in the face of that?

You say "what if," so even you can't say that abortion of a fetus that's not able to sustain life on its own is "killing someone." There's a reason why a fetus is called a fetus and not a baby; there's a reason why there's different terminolgy for it. There's a reason why one can't take out a life insurance policy on a fetus. As for the list of "inconveniences," I guess it's easy to judge what is merely an "inconvinence" for someone else.

So I'll put the same question to you. Why have you not adopted a child who will surely die because he/she has no one? What if allowing a child to die because of one's inaction, because one doesn't choose to nurture that child, is killing someone?-- or at the very least, allowing someone to die? In which case, how is -- to use your line of thought-- maybe killing someone by choosing not to bring a child into the world different from allowing a child to die because you chose not to nurture it? I'd really like to know what your reasons are for not adopting a child considering millions die a day for lack of someone to nurture him/her; because of the lack of someone's choice to in effect give them life.

Either you care equally about all life, or you don't have a leg to stand on. If you don't think the orphan starving in Africa is deserving of life, then you have no right to tell someone else that the fetus they are carrying is deserving of life. Why one would be more worthy of your concern/judgement than the other is difficult to understand.

Edited October 3, 2007 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

I know intimately, if only second hand. I went through months of bedrest my wife was ordered, I went through the hemorages, the emergency visits, the ambulances.....I went through running to find a doctor, cleaning up blood, urine and vomit.........so I think I can safely selve what you think I know firsthand.

"Months of bedrest, hemorages, emergency visits, ambulances, running to find a doctor, blood that needs to be cleaned up, along with urine and vomit ..."

Yep. All of that sounds like nothing more than an inconvenience. And of course if the woman were going it alone, it would simply be a tad more of an inconvenience.

Edited October 3, 2007 by American Woman

[ScottSA]

"Months of bedrest, hemorages, emergency visits, ambulances, running to find a doctor, blood that needs to be cleaned up, along with urine and vomit ..."

Yep. All of that sounds like nothing more than an inconvenience. And of course if the woman were going it alone, it would simply be a tad more of an inconvenience.

Well, easily solved! Just have it out! "Let's see, I can take gravol, or get an abortion. Well, I haven't had an abortion lately, and it works longer, so I guess that's it. I hope they don't mind me taking a couple hours off work. Shame about the life that won't have a chance, but hey, this is all about me, after all..."

[Melanie_]

Any pregnancy, whether carried to term or not, changes a woman. This is about much more than "convenience". Having your period is inconvenient - pregnancy, childbirth and parenting are life altering events. Dancer, you make it sound like it would just be a minor blip in a woman's life to carry an unexpected, unplanned, and unwanted pregnancy to term, or that it would be an equally minor blip in her life to just skip down to the clinic and get an abortion. You are trivializing a choice that most women live in dread of.

[Guest American Woman]

Well, easily solved! Just have it out! "Let's see, I can take gravol, or get an abortion. Well, I haven't had an abortion lately, and it works longer, so I guess that's it. I hope they don't mind me taking a couple hours off work. Shame about the life that won't have a chance, but hey, this is all about me, after all..."

What was actually said: "Months of bedrest" which you trivialize to "a couple hours off work."

And I'm supposed to take what you say seriously?

You still haven't answered the question. If you are so concerned about life, why have you not adopted an orphan from Africa who needs you? A baby/child who will surely die? What is your excuse?

Any pregnancy, whether carried to term or not, changes a woman. This is about much more than "convenience". Having your period is inconvenient - pregnancy, childbirth and parenting are life altering events. Dancer, you make it sound like it would just be a minor blip in a woman's life to carry an unexpected, unplanned, and unwanted pregnancy to term, or that it would be an equally minor blip in her life to just skip down to the clinic and get an abortion. You are trivializing a choice that most women live in dread of.

Well said. There is no bigger responsibility than bringing a child into the world. To sum up carrying a pregnancy to term and/or raising a child as nothing more than convenient or inconvenient is ludicrous.

Edited October 4, 2007 by American Woman

[M.Dancer]

quote name='M.Dancer' date='Oct 2 2007, 10:01 AM'

I think you are making out that every woman who choses an abortion does so because she has no choice. Some don't but most do. Amd most chose convinence over life.

So "most have a choice." And "most chose convenience over life." Tell me again how you have never made a claim that you know why most women have abortions.

I take it then you believe most women have abortions for a specific medical reason as opposed to a non specific reason of convience? And lets not trot out thise who have abortions because of rape, While they are valid, the handful are insignifcant. So yes I don't know why the exact reasonm why most women chose to have an abortion because child raiing in inconvienent...some becasue having a career is more important than a life.....some becasue it will ruin thier figure.....some becasue they are scared.....each has their own reason why abortion is preferable to life.

[M.Dancer]

You were correct in your first sentence when you said you know intimately "if only second hand." You don't know firsthand any more than a doctor knows what it's like to lose a leg because he was the one who performed the surgery. It's two very different things watching and aiding someone and actually BEING that someone.

Let me know when you know first hand what it's like to be aborted. Then I will respect what you might say and not atrribute it to selfishness.

[M.Dancer]

"Months of bedrest, hemorages, emergency visits, ambulances, running to find a doctor, blood that needs to be cleaned up, along with urine and vomit ..."

Yep. All of that sounds like nothing more than an inconvenience. And of course if the woman were going it alone, it would simply be a tad more of an inconvenience.

You are correct. It was nothing more than an inconvienence. Given that my right arm is hers if she should need it, my liver my kidney and my life, what on earth was 5 months? A blip...an inconvienece at worst. A life affriming experiance at best.

[M.Dancer]

You are trivializing a choice that most women live in dread of.

At one time I think most women dreamed of being mothers.......

[ScottSA]

What was actually said: "Months of bedrest" which you trivialize to "a couple hours off work."

Excuse me? Months of bedrest for an abortion? Maybe if there are severe one in a thousand or ten thousand complications, but are you seriously trying to tell me that most abortions require "months of bedrest?"

How can anyone take you seriously when you trot out extremely unlikely circumstances both as reasons for, and consequences of, abortion, and then try to paint them as the norm? We all know that most abortions have nothing to do with rape or medical issues, and that abortions almost never require more than a few days recovery time, yet these are the red herrings usually dragged across the path to excuse the vast majority that serve as birth control.

It seems to me that if you want to kill a life and make it an issue of "rights", then you ought also give the man the "rights" to declare beforehand whether he wants to pay for the next 18 years. But of course we can't do that, can we? Because that wouldn't be "fair" to the child, who has all of a sudden become of overarching important in the conversation, although when we talk about abortion, the child is meaningless. I take it you see no dissonance in that position at all?

Edited October 4, 2007 by ScottSA

[Guest American Woman]

You are correct. It was nothing more than an inconvienence. Given that my right arm is hers if she should need it, my liver my kidney and my life, what on earth was 5 months? A blip...an inconvienece at worst. A life affriming experiance at best.

I wasn't talking about you. I was talking (sarcastically, since you may have missed that too) about how being pregnant was only an "inconvenience" for her.

[Guest American Woman]

Let me know when you know first hand what it's like to be aborted. Then I will respect what you might say and not atrribute it to selfishness.

Let me know when you adopt a child who will die otherwise. When you care as much about babies who are born and dying as you do about a fetus, then I will respect your belief that others should choose to "nurture a life" and not attribute it to a hypocritical "do as I say not as I do" mentality.

[Guest American Woman]

Excuse me? Months of bedrest for an abortion? Maybe if there are severe one in a thousand or ten thousand complications, but are you seriously trying to tell me that most abortions require "months of bedrest?"

I misread your post. But if you think an abortion requires nothing more than "a couple hours of bedrest," you don't have a clue as to what a woman goes through.

How can anyone take you seriously when you trot out extremely unlikely circumstances both as reasons for, and consequences of, abortion, and then try to paint them as the norm? We all know that most abortions have nothing to do with rape or medical issues, and that abortions almost never require more than a few days recovery time, yet these are the red herrings usually dragged across the path to excuse the vast majority that serve as birth control.

I never once brought up rape or medical issues and the circumstances I brought up ARE, for the most part, "the norm." I'm noticing that you seem to have a habit of just dismissing anything that doesn't fit in with your mindset. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Address what I said or I no longer will respond you your posts.

It seems to me that if you want to kill a life and make it an issue of "rights", then you ought also give the man the "rights" to declare beforehand whether he wants to pay for the next 18 years. But of course we can't do that, can we? Because that wouldn't be "fair" to the child, who has all of a sudden become of overarching important in the conversation, although when we talk about abortion, the child is meaningless. I take it you see no dissonance in that position at all?

As I said, a fetus that cannot survive on it's own is not medically or legally a "child," so when considering whose "rights" should take precedence, I'll choose the woman's. I have to wonder, though, in light of your all out concern for the fetus, how you can even think men should have the "right" to choose not to help support a living, breathing child, same as the woman must. If you think a man should have that "right," your claim of concern for a fetus goes right out the window. Because no, it wouldn't be fair to the child. At this point, since the child is a living breathing person able to survive on its own outside the womb, his/her rights take precedence over the man's and the woman's.

Now I'm still waiting to hear why your concern for fetuses doesn't extend to children who are dying on this earth; why you expect women to carry a fetus to term and nurture it to, in your eyes, 'save a life' when you don't take on the responsibility of raising/nurturing an orphan to save a baby's life. I noticed that neither you nor M.Dancer have touched that question. It seems you want to leave all the nurturing/saving babies' lives to others.

[Melanie_]

At one time I think most women dreamed of being mothers.......

Most women do still dream of being mothers, but they also want it to be when they are ready. Choosing to abort an unwanted pregnancy doesn't mean choosing never to have children, it just means choosing not to have children now. Becoming a mother changes everything about your life, and the only person who can decide if she wants her life changed like that is the woman involved. Your "convenience" argument is petty - it makes it seem as if it is just a minor detail to have a baby.

[M.Dancer]

Most women do still dream of being mothers, but they also want it to be when they are ready. Choosing to abort an unwanted pregnancy doesn't mean choosing never to have children, it just means choosing not to have children now.

I agree with you 100%.

Becoming a mother changes everything about your life, and the only person who can decide if she wants her life changed like that is the woman involved. Your "convenience" argument is petty - it makes it seem as if it is just a minor detail to have a baby.

Notwithstanding that women who abort because the time is not right are relying on abortion as the birth control of last resort.

You may think I am trivializing birth and parenting by saying that some women who choose abortion because, well, the timing isn't right (convienent)......maybe I am. But which is worse, trivializing birth for sake of argument or trivializing death for the sake of getting a promotion.

As I said above, I have known several women who have had elective abortions and I can't think of one who's decision wasn't in the end selfish.

Edited October 4, 2007 by M.Dancer

[Drea]

I know exactly what it's like to have an abortion. I had two.

One when I was 14 years old.

One when I was 32.

I am in no way ashamed or sad because of it. It was the right thing to do in both cases.

I also know exactly what it's like to have a child.

I have a son, born when I was 28.

Spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) happen all the time. Yet no one is condeming nature for doing the right thing.

And you men, no matter how many children you have seen your wives birth, you cannot possibly know what it is like. For all your input... LOL... your "input" could have ended up in the toilet that day...

I shake my head when I see it's the same people who condemn single mothers for being single mothers yet would deny them the option of NOT being single mothers.

[M.Dancer]

Now there's some fuzzy thinking....comparing a spontaneous abortion with an elective abortion.

Sort of like a defence lawyer asking the jury to aquit because, after all, heart attacks kill all the time too and no one has yet convicted nature of doing thne right thing.

Who exactly in this tread has condemned single mothers? Is there a poster named strawman here?

[ScottSA]

As I said, a fetus that cannot survive on it's own is not medically or legally a "child," so when considering whose "rights" should take precedence, I'll choose the woman's. I have to wonder, though, in light of your all out concern for the fetus, how you can even think men should have the "right" to choose not to help support a living, breathing child, same as the woman must. If you think a man should have that "right," your claim of concern for a fetus goes right out the window. Because no, it wouldn't be fair to the child. At this point, since the child is a living breathing person able to survive on its own outside the womb, his/her rights take precedence over the man's and the woman's.

Ah, here's the rub. First, "medically" and "legally" are not the same thing. Legality is philosophically irrelvant, because a child didn't become not a child on the day abortion became legal, and it won't suddenly become a child on the day the law is changed back simply because of its legal status. It either is or it ain't, regardless of what the law says.

Medically, you are defining it arbitrary as "able to survive outside the womb." One could profitably argue that a child is unable to survive outside the womb until it's damned near in its pre-teens, since if one were to drop an infant in the wilderness and leave it, there is a 99.99999% change it will die. We know that because infanticide used to be quite the rage as a method of birthcontrol back before they invented coathangers and back alleys. An infant has very little more ability to survive outside the womb on its own than does a one month old fetus. Both, however, will become adults if given proper care and failing a negative act of God.

My use of child support was to show you the flip side of the "rights" meme. If you consider it a "right" for a woman to kill a child because she's not "ready" to spend 9 months carrying it, then it ought to be a "right" for a man to determine whether he's ready to pay for it for the next 18 - 20 years. There are two sides to this "rights" argument, even if you don't want to see them.

Now I'm still waiting to hear why your concern for fetuses doesn't extend to children who are dying on this earth; why you expect women to carry a fetus to term and nurture it to, in your eyes, 'save a life' when you don't take on the responsibility of raising/nurturing an orphan to save a baby's life. I noticed that neither you nor M.Dancer have touched that question. It seems you want to leave all the nurturing/saving babies' lives to others.

There's nothing to answer. It's actually silly. You're in effect justifying killing your baby because I won't take care of it. It's not my job to take care of your baby, but even so, there are 100s of people looking for kids to adopt, so if a mother wants to discard her baby because she's not "ready," then there are, apparently, a whole lot of people who are.

[M.Dancer]

Surviving out of the womb is a goal post that is not moving in favour of the abortion advocates.

Currently the law is 20 weeks. Which seems reasonable.....

My daughter was born premature just over 10 weeks early, around the 27 week of gestation. We and she were very very lucky coupled with some of the best medical care anbywhere.

50 years ago she would not have survived, but she thrives now.

The current record for a premature birth is 22 weeks. What will the rationale for ending a life be in 20 years if viability outside the womb is down to 8 weeks?

I suspect because of the convience of abortion, abortion will no longer be desirable until an OBGYN can remove a fetus from its mother and place it in a host....thereby raising a complete set of new ethical delimimas and providing a convient solution for hollywood celebres who want children but don't want the inconvience of carrying or birthing them....

[Guest American Woman]

Ah, here's the rub. First, "medically" and "legally" are not the same thing. Legality is philosophically irrelvant, because a child didn't become not a child on the day abortion became legal, and it won't suddenly become a child on the day the law is changed back simply because of its legal status. It either is or it ain't, regardless of what the law says.

I never said legally and medically were the same thing. I just pointed out that in this case a fetus is not a "child" medically or legally. As fyi, a fetus was not a child even before abortion became legal; it was still a fetus. So I won't discuss a point with you that I never claimed.

Medically, you are defining it arbitrary as "able to survive outside the womb." One could profitably argue that a child is unable to survive outside the womb until it's damned near in its pre-teens, since if one were to drop an infant in the wilderness and leave it, there is a 99.99999% change it will die. We know that because infanticide used to be quite the rage as a method of birthcontrol back before they invented coathangers and back alleys. An infant has very little more ability to survive outside the womb on its own than does a one month old fetus. Both, however, will become adults if given proper care and failing a negative act of God.

I didn't realize we were playing word games. "Able" to survive outside the womb means exactly that; that it is ABLE. It has the ability. Of course 'with proper care' was a given. But since you point out how much a "rage" it was to commit infanticide, one would think you'd be glad that's no longer the "rage" because women now have a choice to carry a pregnancy to term or not. But I hate to break it to you-- sometimes it's not a "will of God" that a child doesn't make it to adulthood, which is another reason why those who are not ready, those who don't have the means, those who don't want to take on the responsibility/feel they lack the responsibility are making the responsible decision not to bring a child into the world.

My use of child support was to show you the flip side of the "rights" meme. If you consider it a "right" for a woman to kill a child because she's not "ready" to spend 9 months carrying it, then it ought to be a "right" for a man to determine whether he's ready to pay for it for the next 18 - 20 years. There are two sides to this "rights" argument, even if you don't want to see them.

Your "use" of child support is totally irrelevant. One issue involves a fetus, which lacks the ability to survive outside the womb. The other involves a living, breathing child who is able to live outside the womb, independant of another's body. Furthermore, child support isn't about the mother or the father; it's about the child's rights.

There's nothing to answer. It's actually silly. You're in effect justifying killing your baby because I won't take care of it. It's not my job to take care of your baby, but even so, there are 100s of people looking for kids to adopt, so if a mother wants to discard her baby because she's not "ready," then there are, apparently, a whole lot of people who are.

So it's not your job to take care of someone else's baby. News flash. It's not their responsiblity to have, raise, and nurture a child they don't want either, just because you think they should. The bottom line, and this is obvious from your answer, you don't want the "inconvenience" of raising a child you don't want, but you expect others to do that very thing. And I wasn't talking about taking care of "my" baby. I was quite clearly talking about taking care of a baby who is already on this earth; a baby who will surely die because he/she has no one to nurture him/her. I can only deduct that you don't want to because it would be "inconvenient." Like I said, it's a hypocritical 'do as I say not as I do' holier than thou attitude. Preach about how others should forgo the "inconveniences" of raising a child, to 'spare a life,' as you chose not to do the same yourself.

Edited October 4, 2007 by American Woman

[fellowtraveller]

It either is or it ain't, regardless of what the law says.

What law would that be? Where exactly is the Criminal Code legislation that allows or forbids abortion?

Canada has very little legal precedent on abortion, or relatively little - and that is a constant source of frustration for the ProLifers. They cannot present a coherent legal challenge where there is no lawon the books. Nothing to rescind either. Advantage to the Pro-Death side.