Abortion stances

[nykoelle]

I believe there are really three stances on abortion:

1. Pro Life: Abortion is wrong, it should be banned, end of discussion
2. Pro Choice: My personal beliefs on the matter shouldn't control the legal rights of others. They deserve the right to legally believe and practice how they feel.
3. Pro Abortion: I believe that the fetus is not a baby, and abortion should be legal for all.

I think most people fall under Pro Choice, even though they don't even really know it. It's a shame really, I've talked to a lot of Pro Life people in my time, and they pretty much agreed with me on everything, only they thought abortion was wrong. But they didn't want it banned.

Do you agree or disagree with this? Also, personal stances? I'm pro abortion, but I respect anyone that is pro choice in that they don't try to control the country's beliefs based on their own.

[bugsbunny04]

Heh, I bet you are also against the death penalty. I know its a littl eof topic but I'll tell you like the College Democrats, Why is it okay to stop a beating, human heart (you arent really going to argue it isnt human, are you?) that has never held and evil thought but not okay to stop a beating heart the carrier of which has raped and murdered numerous women?

Of course, I happen to have a rather barbaric veiw. I think if it is known the child is going to have some sort of disability that will prevent it from becoming a productive part of society, then abortion is okay. I also think rape babies can be aborted, because the apple truly doesnt fall far from the tree. Other than that, again, the apple doesnt fall far from the tree, so I think abortion should be legal, after all, the type of person who would kill their own children on a basis of convenience, what kind of people would we expect their children to be?

In other words, abortion should be legal, if only to minimize the amount of homocidal/infanticidal, and/or rapist tendancy, and other genetic defects floating around in the gene pool.

Yeah, I know, Im a bad person.

[nykoelle]

I'm iffy on death penalty... the only problem I have with it is when there's a chance that the person could be innocent. If the person was 100% guilty, like was seen doing the murder by more than one person etc, then it doesn't bother me. However, innocent people have been put to death, and I don't like that.

Your stance on abortion though, doesn't work in that you can't go around quantifying lives. What you're basically saying is that someone with a defect is less a person than someone without. It would never work in this society. I know it works in Spain, but I doubt america would accept it. It's all or nothing with this country. The best way to reduce abortions is education in my opinion.

[Osborn F Enready]

I would essentially agree nykoelle.

I am pro-choice.

[bullshitdetector]

Abortion..hmmm..lets see, abortion is the after thought, the act that comes after copulation beit voluntary or involuntary.

In all reality, voluntary has been skewed as involuntary by the rising cases of wrongful accusations levied at men of rape, date rape, you get the drift. This means more often than should be tolerable abortion is utilized as an afterthought to an 'oopsie, I got pregnant and I don't and never did want this' and abused as a means of birth control.

Another issue with abortion is how the rights of the woman always defaults the mans, if she wants to keep the child, the man is responsible, if she doesn't want to keep the child she doesn't have to and the man has no choice. He doesn't get the choice to keep it or dispose of it, only the woman does. Now I know that the famous mantra to that is "My body, my choice", that is true if you're impregnating yourself artificially without anyone else involved who could be liable for whatever choice you make, either the unborn human fetus or the father of said unborn fetus. My body my choice also can be used in an argument when cleaning out a meat grinder, when you stick your hand in to clean it instead of a utensil you are opting to take a chance and if it gets chewed off there in lies the consequence. Copulating is a gamble not too far off the mark from that analogy, no form of birth control is 100% full proof, going into the act of copulating knowing that surrenders tha idea of "I didn't mean to get pregnant so I'm not responsible" because you are, you can't get pregnant without taking a gamble and you can't win the lottery without buying a lottery ticket.

Both sides, man and woman are equally responsible and the endless war over who has more right and who is more vulnerable is tiresome. If we simply make both men and women equally responsible for birth control, equally responsible for the outcome of concieving a child, the argument fades and the number of abortions fade, no need to outlaw anything.

Abortion is a process that can save a life, abortion is a process that can free legitimate victims of rape and incest bearing pregnancies from a life of hell they never deserved to be exposed to. The gray area of rape and it’s ever changing definition creates a whole new class of victims, the unborn human fetus and the men who are involved in these scenarios. Not all rape cases are bogus but not all are legitimate either.

Another problem with abortion is the class of people who just have more children because they have never bore the responsibility of raising them, caring for them financially without the aid of the government programs. After so many children the monthly allotment peaks and no more is handed out. The people who reached their opius capicity of the ultimate handout from the monthly government check never knew restraint and forethought to consider birth control and other methods because, litterally, before there were no consequences. Daddy Welfare and the Foodstamp trio kept the feedbag going.

What does happen is the woman eventually kicks the old man out, he gets hung by the short hairs in family court and the state has his number for life, or at least 18 to 22 years. The woman then gets on upreach programs which are set up for failure because again, Daddy Welfare and Foodstamp trio never had any ideals of letting you out of their clutches. The woman then becomes eligible for more help than she did before the old man was tossed out on his ear.

If welfare reform was effective many people would be very careful before being so lax about birth control, one night stands without protection etc. If every welfare recipient who was not actively looking to get off the system and better themselves were made to show earn their money, much of this would simply fix itself.

The government should have a room where every welfare mother and father should have to show up at a local facility, they each get a desk, and a chair. They don’t have to do anything, that way they wont get hurt, no one gets to cry discrimination and everyone virtually is treated identical. They have to sit there for 8 hours a day 7am to 3:30pm, five days a week. They get a 20 minute break at 10am and a lunch break at 12:30pm and they get to go home at 3:30. If they have kids they get to take them to a daycare during those hours.

This is no more inhumane or demoralizing than the average Joe or Jane Doe who has to work everyday, like it or not, take it as it comes day in and day out. If these people were made to do this to earn their handouts, the list of recipients would plummet like a piano dropped out off the 32nd floor.

Making people more accountable creates motivation and forethought before performing an act they would otherwise think nothing of because they know someone else is going to pay the tab either way, either by welfare or the taxpayers money trying cases of rape or child support.

Again, only people who are legitimate victims of rape or those whos lives are seriously at stake if a pregnancy is brought to full term should be allowed an abortion.

Does that make me an SOB? I don't care, when you do something that drags society down and affects society it is no longer a personal issue. Only when it involves you only you is it personal.

[Gorgo]

Abortion is a major medical procedure that should not be taken lightly. Other than that, I have no problem with it. Society has to draw the line somewhere, and I see no problem with abortions before the third trimester at all, and in some cases in the third trimester.

[SVMc]

Wow, you always get one with this topic. BTW what happened to producing sources on this board?

In all reality, voluntary has been skewed as involuntary by the rising cases of wrongful accusations levied at men of rape, date rape, you get the drift

Source?

Actually if you live in the US your view on how many Rapes are in fact "false" rapes will be determined by the state you live in. For example in the bible belt state of Kansas they claimed that 25% of all rapes were false (Kansas Star 1996), while in Dallas only two months earlier on the Morning Show they sighted only 6.9% of rapes as false accusations. The wide opinion held by most academics places a national average at around the same level as that of other crimes of 2% of rapes being false accusations (Marcia L. Roth, Louisville Courier - Journal & Columbia University Journal Review; Julie Allison & Lawrence Wrightman (Rape, the Misunderstood Crime). The FBI totals their data on a state by state basis and come to an average of 8%. No matter how much you look at the numbers they aren't high unless you're in Kansas.

According to what looks like your argument you seem to be saying there are three types of women who have abortions. Some who are victims of rape or whose lives are seriously at sake you have no issue with. You however categorize the other two groups of women into two deroguatory categories of women who are using abortion in lieu of birth control, and women who are having babies to increase their welfare allowance but stop once they reach a financial cap.

First of all 54% of women who have an abortion were using contraception (Alan Guttmacher INstitute US 2003 Facts in Breif). That would be my first incicator that these women 1. were thinking about the "risk" of preganacny and were doing something to prevent it 2. their partners were most likely not trying to get them pregnant and may not want to have any part in raising a child. If people do use contraception that is an indicator that they were not trying to produce a pregnancy. Or are we moving back to an "every sperm is sacred" ideal where all sex is only supposed to be for procreation?

Second 52% of women getting abortions are under the age of 25, 78% of teen pregnancies are unplanned this accounts for 25% of all unplanned pregnancies.

This begins to show us that the major issue in reducing the amount of abortions is directly related to reducing the rate of teen pregnancy. Which has in fact been very effective in the 1990's the teen pregnancy rate steadily dropped from 1990 to 2000 by a total of 28% (and 32% for women of colour), and the abortion rate has falled 43% in the same period. Apparently sex education does work, and contraception becomes more effective as people know how to use it properly.

I guess this is where we turn to the less than flattering depiction of the welfare mother. First of all less than one third of women who need access to contracetion are able to get it under medicaid (The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy 1998). Then we have to consider that 57% of women who get abortions are over 200% below the poverty line.

The original Hyde amendment in 1977 disallowed any federal funds form being spent on abortion (meaning if you were on welfare you didn't have a choice) however they gave children's allowance creating the current image of the welfare mother who has kids simply to increase her allotment.

Yet there are numerous studies that show that the welfare rates do not cover what is considered the basic cost of living, meaning more children would push a woman further below the poverty line. These women do not have children to up their allowance they usually have them because of 1. lack of access to contraception coupled with 2. the newer Medicaid laws will only provide abortion in cases of rape or incest (except in 2 states where that isn't even a reason) and "medially necessary" in only 16 states. This creates a situation where many women either have to pay for less than legal abortions from money they don't have or they have a child that will be a financial burden.

If we're going to get into a debate over the sterotypes associated with poverty we should move it to another thread.

[SVMc]

I guess I'm a little unclear on how you're differentiating between pro-choice and pro-abortion. I always assumed someone who is pro-choice supported the legality of abortions thereby allowing any person who wants an abortion access to it, while those who don't want one don't have to get one. To me the term pro-abortion would signal a more nialistic view of being anti-procreation, supporting a view that human procreation is a parasite on the earth and therefore we should not procreate but should stop breeding all together.

I've always identified as pro-choice. I'd be interested in how you came to the differentiation between pro-choice and pro-abortion in the way that you did.

[Suburbanite]

I really don't care about abortions, the death of the baby hardly means much in my eyes. What I don't like though is irresponsibility. Maybe people who have abortions should have to pay more taxes or something.

[OberonDOtherseid]

SVMc I would like to see your sources, good read BTW. But I think BSD had many good points, for instance how many of the teen pregnancies are from households of welfare recipients who display a bad example to their offspring? And from what I read reading BSD's post he didn't single women out over men, he said they are equally accountable. Whether they (men AND women) are taking birth control or not, it is a risk just like smoking pot or a cigarette, you probably won't get cancer but if you do, you knew the risk.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: SVMc I guess I'm a little unclear on how you're differentiating between pro-choice and pro-abortion. I always assumed someone who is pro-choice supported the legality of abortions thereby allowing any person who wants an abortion access to it, while those who don't want one don't have to get one. To me the term pro-abortion would signal a more nialistic view of being anti-procreation, supporting a view that human procreation is a parasite on the earth and therefore we should not procreate but should stop breeding all together. I've always identified as pro-choice. I'd be interested in how you came to the differentiation between pro-choice and pro-abortion in the way that you did.

Excellent point SVMc. In essense, "pro-choice" IS pro abortion. As we are a society of labels we need SOMETHING to differentiate the two and pro-choice seems to fit. Perhaps the thoroughly confusing "anti-pro-life" would be more appropriate. In other words, being personally against abortion but not wanting to allow the pro-life group to deny abortion for those who DO want it.

[Milton Bradley]

I fit pretty squarely into the "2" catagory.

[nykoelle]

Quote by: SVMc I guess I'm a little unclear on how you're differentiating between pro-choice and pro-abortion. I always assumed someone who is pro-choice supported the legality of abortions thereby allowing any person who wants an abortion access to it, while those who don't want one don't have to get one. To me the term pro-abortion would signal a more nialistic view of being anti-procreation, supporting a view that human procreation is a parasite on the earth and therefore we should not procreate but should stop breeding all together. I've always identified as pro-choice. I'd be interested in how you came to the differentiation between pro-choice and pro-abortion in the way that you did.

I can only explain this with an example, I have two.

I have a friend, die hard catholic. She believes the fetus is a baby from conception. No debate. You can't tell her otherwise. However, she's 100% pro choice. She doesn't believe that her beliefs should control the whole populations. I was a little shocked when she told me this, and she told me more, like how her girlfriend (yea, shes gay) is bi and had an abortion once. She still respects her though, because the girlfriend acted out of her own beliefs. She knew she wouldn't want to be judged or controlled for being Catholic, and is giving the same respect.

Same scenario, only with a priest i had in highschool as a theology teacher. He said something like he enjoys being catholic, but wouldn't want the government to have control over his philosophic beliefs, which is all abortion boils down to, whether the fetus is considered a viable human or not. The populace will never agree, thats why I and these people are pro choice, despite our beliefs about abortion. It's a matter of government control of freedom over one's body and beliefs.

Being pro choice doens't mean you support abortion or think its right. IT's just affirming that you respect other people's feelings and decisions.

[Anniee]

Quote by: SVMc First of all 54% of women who have an abortion were using contraception (Alan Guttmacher INstitute US 2003 Facts in Breif)

Ok so the Guttmacher Institute acknowledges that all the statistics concerning the efficacy of every birth control method known as espoused by Planned Parenthood are complete lies? For example, they claim the pill is in the high 90s, condoms high 90s, Depo high 90s...and now 54% of women who have an abortion were using something?

The two don't gibe in any way, shape or form; someone is lying.

[Anniee]

Oh; as to the OP, I'm pro-life, because as a libertarian I believe the rights of all should never be encroached upon by others. Yes, I believe the unborn is a human life and should not have its life terminated.

I'd pose a question to the pro-abortion/pro-choice, and I have a feeling I know the answer: if it were possible, and no more invasive than abortion, to remove the fetus and at no expense or obligation to the mother grow it to term, should the mother still have the right to terminate it altogether? Wouldn't most of them terminate anyway? Why?

[Starboy]

Quote by: nykoelle I believe there are really three stances on abortion: 1. Pro Life: Abortion is wrong, it should be banned, end of discussion 2. Pro Choice: My personal beliefs on the matter shouldn't control the legal rights of others. They deserve the right to legally believe and practice how they feel. 3. Pro Abortion: I believe that the fetus is not a baby, and abortion should be legal for all. I think most people fall under Pro Choice, even though they don't even really know it. It's a shame really, I've talked to a lot of Pro Life people in my time, and they pretty much agreed with me on everything, only they thought abortion was wrong. But they didn't want it banned. Do you agree or disagree with this? Also, personal stances? I'm pro abortion, but I respect anyone that is pro choice in that they don't try to control the country's beliefs based on their own.

I think you have done a good job in identifying the main arguments. What I see happening in society is that the third argument is almost completely ignored. I find that to be disingenuous because the reason it is being ignored is due to the viewpoint that has turned this into a controversy in the first place. For most of the people that oppose abortion the issue is one of ensoulment. About 150 years ago the church changed its mind and decided that the soul entered the body at conception. Prior to that what was in the womb was not considered to be human until it had limbs. This allowed abortion some time around ten weeks or so. In a secular society the definition of life should not depend on a religious explanation. The reason for this is simple, which religion gets to decide when life begins? If there is freedom of religion then why should a Native Americans views take precedent over a Hindus, Muslim or Christian or visa versa? In a society with freedom of religion none of the religious views should have the force of law. What many people also do is to conflate life with a human life. Everything is alive in this process, the parents, the egg, the sperm, the zygote, morula, blastocyst and so on. Also during this period what is in the womb can naturally abort. No one seems to be upset about that. Also what I find very funny about all this is that up to 5 weeks no baby is forming. What is forming is the machinery to support the baby, what is called the afterbirth. Nobody thinks that the afterbirth is human. This supposed controversy that is being generated in society is only possible because there is no desire to inject the scientific facts into it. Because this would bring up the fundamental conflict between the reality of science and the reality of religion and the religious do not want to do this. If they did this it would point them out to be the flaming hypocrites that they are. So they very carefully ignore the third item all together.

Starboy

[SVMc]

ObersonDOtherseid - the main source (which I did site in the above entry) is the Alan Guttmacher Institute... their research has been dedicated to tracking these issues (teen pregancy, abortion, economics of abortion etc...) over at least the last 10 years, they're one of the most respected sources for the United States.... there are better sources for other countries, but the United States doesn't take census in this matter as thourghly as some other developed nations since the end of the Clinton administration...(another debate entirely).

Using some basic census data and taking that the black and hispanic communities are in aggregate poorer than the white community the majority of teen pregnancies are from the black and hispanic community. However, in the last 10 years as the teen birth rate has dropped an average of 28% in the united states it has dropped faster in these communities (32%) in the black community (also from the Alan Guttmacher Institute). So, I would argue that it has been identified that economic hardship has impaced teen pregnancy rates and there are programs in place, which are working, to reduce teen pregnancy in the most vulnerable sectors.

I think we have different intrepretations of BSD's view on the accountability of men and women in this situation. I think he failed to address how men could be equally responsible, or how historically greater responsiblity has always been placed upon women (weather the three of us think it is justifiable or not), we can "should" ourselves to death discussing how the world "ought" to be, but that dosen't effect real change. What I took exception to was the negative depiction of women as:

BSD: What does happen is the woman eventually kicks the old man out, he gets hung by the short hairs in family court and the state has his number for life, or at least 18 to 22 years. The woman then gets on upreach programs which are set up for failure because again, Daddy Welfare and Foodstamp trio never had any ideals of letting you out of their clutches. The woman then becomes eligible for more help than she did before the old man was tossed out on his ear.

There's no similar balanced analysis of men who don't want parental responsiblity having sex. I could be entirely wrong, and pehaps BSD will clarify this opinion on the next page (haven't read pg. 2 at this point), but the speed at which he condems women who have abortions does not seem to be equated with the very real number of men who leave their children (planned and unplanned). Which in the case of abortion is a reason often sited by women for having an abortion.

[SVMc]

Being pro choice doens't mean you support abortion or think its right. IT's just affirming that you respect other people's feelings and decisions.

You'll pardon me while I struggle with this a little, understand that I am not disagreeing, simply seeking to understand how this re-definition would be applied.

I think the difficulty I come to is that in differentiating between pro-abortion and pro-choice in that way there seems to be a divide based on action. (I could be wrong please correct me if I am).

The way I'm understanding it, is that someone who is pro-choice, supports the existence of legal abortions to those who want them, but would at the same time feel morallly against the act. While those who are pro-abortion would feel morally aligned with the act, therefore believe it should be legal.

So really what we're dealing with is the tem pro-choice being divided legally and morally. For instance if this were purley a legal debate we would have two camps pro-life (who are against legal access to abortions) and pro-choice (who would support leagal access to abortions). However if we were dealing with a moral stance we would also be dealing with two camps: pro-life (those morally against the act of abortion) and pro-abortion (those who believe there is no moral wrong in the act of abortion). Therefore it is a two fold question, where does one stand legally on the issue of abortion and where does one stand morally on the issue of abortion. Yes?

[SVMc]

For example, they claim the pill is in the high 90s, condoms high 90s, Depo high 90s...and now 54% of women who have an abortion were using something?

May I suggest you read the entire report. The reason the number of 54% of women identfying use of birth control and still getting pregnant is important because the the majority of those pregnancies were teen pregnancies.

This fact lead to the discovery that while most of the women were using bith control...

(We need to remember there are more than three methods of bith control here... diaphrams, spermacide, sponges, rythm method, vasectomy, and the ones included above)

...many of these women were not properly educated on the most effective use of birth control. Too many had never talked to or been talked to by their parents or schools as to how to properly guard against pregnancy. Too many were taught that abstinence was the only way.... and they felt too emabrrased to go to anybody when they felt they had "failed" at abstinance, and then took advice from friends or siblings on birth control instead of doctors, nurses, educators or parents. Ending in the United States having the highest teen pregnancy rate of any developed nation.

It is however a credit to sex educators that this problem has been identified, and due to diligent work in the feild the rate of teen pregnancy has dropped 28% in the last ten years.

[Suburbanite]

how about
pro-prevention: advocate of killing unborn babies even though they are alive?