Heck, I’ve been around this place for enough time for you all to know that I’m passionately in favour of the “pro-choice” political and ethical stance.
There’s a pretty good chance that my 15 year old is pregnant right now (forget the morality arguments about me “letting” her have sex, most of you are aware of the history and the efforts I went to ensure that she had adequate contraception).
Every single fibre of my being right now is saying “she’s too young to be a mum”. But my daughter is passionately pro-life. As she continued to take oral contraceptives after conception occured, there’s a possibility (small, but nonetheless valid) that my grandchild may be adversely affected by those hormones.
You know what? If my daughter decides to have this baby then I will be there for her every step of the way. Yep, it will be kind of tough for all of us, but by godness we will welcome and love that child. We’ll rearrange our lives so my daughter can remain at school and also be a good mum.
I’ll also walk with her every step of the way if she decides that she’s too young to deal with this. I’ll hold her hand and grieve with her about what might have been.
And whichever decision my daughter makes, I’ll stand by her and be there for her every single step of the way. You bet I’m pro-choice, but pro-choice doesn’t automatically equal “pro-abortion”. I just wanted to relate a personal story which demonstrtes what “pro-choice” really means. To me it means not only letting a woman make her own choice but also supporting her in whichever decision she makes. It most certainly doesn’t mean that I’m “pro-abortion”.
I’m not sure why you posted this in GD, but I had to come take issue anyway. Pro-life speaking, FYI.
You are in fact pro-abortion. That means you support abortion, nothing more, nothing less. It doesn’t mean you support forced abortions or only abortion, doesn’t make you anti-baby or some such nonsense. It means you favor abortion availability. Why do you have such a difficult time admitting this? I say ‘you’ advisedly, as this seems to be a common statement by pro-choice people. “I’m pro-choice, but that doesn’t make me pro-abortion!” I’m not going to beat you over the head on this. We disagree. Yup. Just fess up that pro-choice advocates abortion access.
Well, how come you don’t describe your own position as “anti-choice”? Probably because you don’t feel its connotations really represent your position, and you don’t like to let those who disagree with you define the label that you use for your position.
Similarly, reprise probably feels (as do many of us on the pro-choice side of the debate) that the term “pro-abortion” is not in fact identical to “pro-choice” or “pro-abortion-rights”, and that the term she prefers more adequately reflects her own views. Call yourself and others by whatever reasonably descriptive label you like, but recognize that others will make their own decisions about terminology. Telling them that they are “in fact” what you prefer to call them and demanding that they “fess up” and agree with you will not change that.
Perhaps you’re right Kimstu in one regard. I have no objection to being referred to as anti-abortion, as that is clear and consise, in addition to being accurate.
Perhaps I should have stated my perspective in another way. Pro-choice is a term used to secure some hypothetical high moral ground in the debate, which is really a debate about abortion access, the sole area of dispute. We don’t disagree about contraception, adoption, birth. We disagree about abortion, so in that regard, pro-life and pro-choice both proffer choice; we simply cannot support one specific choice, abortion. It’s an attempt to buffer one side of the debate and leave the opponent on less sure footing. Happens in many political situations, so it’s hardly unique. I just would prefer to cut to the chase as it were, and call the debate based on the item in dispute.
Pro-choice all the way. It’s the woman’s child, she should decide. The child probably isn’t even concious yet, it can’t even think. IT’s just a mass of cells. Given the right genetic code, and it could turn into a slug, or anything.
NaSultainne:I just would prefer to cut to the chase as it were, and call the debate based on the item in dispute.
Not unreasonable, but in that case, of course, you couldn’t call yourself “pro-life” either (speaking of terms “used to secure some hypothetical high moral ground in the debate”!).
Best of luck, reprise, I’m pretty sure this will be tough on all concerned.
Does the father know ?
Please let us know how this turns out, as many of us care
BTW, I’ll not be giving you any morality arguments about you letting her have sex.
a) it’s none of my business how you raise your child.
b) I’m not aware of the history, but it’s irrelevant.
c) children will have sex whether you “let” them or not.
d) better they have safe sex (or attempt to) than unsafe sex.
e) I lost my virginity at the age of 14. My mum found out only 6 months ago that I lost it before I turned 17 (I’m now married and 23) and that shocked her, so you’re lucky you have good communication lines with your daughter.
I feel any girl of 15 is too young to be a mother, but quite often they can surprise you.
Either way, it will be an upheaval. Best wishes. Please keep us posted
BTW, I think it’s amazing that you are prepared to make all those sacrifices. I hope your daughter appreciates the offer, even if she doesn’t end up keeping it.
Do you see what you just wrote? Twice you used the word child, then you immediately revert to describing it as nothing more than a mass of cells. Are you aware that from 8 weeks to term the accurate terminology is fetus? Are you aware that the fetus has a heartbeat as early as 8 weeks? And your throwaway line about genetic code and slugs, that’s just deliberately offensive. A human ovum and human sperm conceive a human child, and nothing else. If you’re going to advocate a position please do so intelligently.
Kimstu, I don’t agree that pro-life is inaccurate. It fully describes the POV which is always pro-life. It’s used to avoid the awkward negative connotations of anti anything and gain parity with the pro-choice position. As I noted, call me anti-abortion and I’m all for it.
Heck, I’ve been around this place for enough time for you all to know that I’m passionately against “drunk driving” and in favor of “MADD” (= Mothers Against Drunk Drivers) political and ethical stance.
There’s a pretty good chance that my 60 year old father just got a DWI (forget the morality arguments about me “letting” my father drink and get behind the wheels, most of you are aware of the history and the efforts I went to ensure that he would not go on excessive drinking).
Every single fibre of my being right now is saying “he was just having a good time, and he did not hurt anyone”. But my father is passionately pro-fun. As he continued to drive carefully after a few drinks, there’s a possibility (small, but nonetheless valid) that he could have hit someone with his car.
You know what? If my father decides to have fun and have his booz and drive then I will be there for him every step of the way. Yep, it will be kind of tough for all of us, but by godness why don’t we have “DDAM” (=Drunk Drivers Against Mothers). We’ll rearrange our lives so our children do not wonder around the streets at night to be hit by cars, and my dad can have fun rather than being arrested by the cops in a victimless-crime episode.
I’ll also talk and laugh with him every step of the way if he decides that he has had enough of these boring, self-righteous people around him. I’ll hold his glass and wonder with him what life could be like if the cops did not put victimless drivers in jail and confiscate their driving license which is their main means to get back and forth to work.
And whichever decision my father makes, I’ll stand by him and be there for him every single step of the way. You bet I’m pro-fun, but pro-fun doesn’t automatically equal “killing every pedestrian on sight, or passing through every red light”. I just wanted to relate a personal story which demonstrtes what “pro-fun” really means. To me it means not only letting a man make his own choice but also supporting him in whichever decision he makes. It most certainly doesn’t mean that I’m “non-prohibitionist”.
To those who haven’t been around on this messageboard long enough know that I’m passionately “pro-choice”, I’m sorry.
Yes this does deserve to be GD, and one of the reasons it deserves to be one is because we are no longer talking in the abstract.
If someone think’s that I’m “pro-abortion” because I’ve aid that I will wholeheartedly support any decision my daughter makes in this instance (sorry, I should probably have specifically stated that I will also support her should she choose to surrender her child to foster care - the US and Australian laws regarding adoption are so different that we really don’t want to enter that argument).
You know, I’m one of the most passionate people on this MB when it comes to arguing choice. It’s no secret whatsoever that I consider a “conceptus” just a bunch of cells. And yes, even if that conceptus is my potential grandbaby, it’s still just a bunch of cells.
But passionate as my “pro-choice” stance is, should my daughter decide that she wants to give birth to this child I will do everything in my power to allow my daughter to raise this baby and continue her own education. Strangely enough, I don’t see too many “pro-life” people willing to do the same.
Call my stance “pro-abortion” if you choose to. But if you’re going to make that kind of a statement in GD then you had better be willing to back it up.
Note to mods : I am not trying to be jerk-like in GD, I just have a donkey image in my head at the moment
If you think you were making a particularly valid point, please use your own words. What you did post was insulting, meaningless and didn’t add one thing to this debate/conversation. If you have something meaningful to contribute, try again, I believe everyone should get a second chance.
Please take a look at http://www.unborn.com and tell us if it really is just “a mass of cells.”
Do you have any documented evidence of a fetus turning into a slug?
Besides, it already has a SPECIFIC genetic code. One could hypothesize about what would happen if it had a different code, but those would be purely hypothetical scenarios. Moreover, at the fetal stage, the unborn’s development is already well on its way. By what stretch of the imagination can one presume that it will turn into a slug or any such creature?
I believe people should have a license to have a child. After all, you get a license to have a dog, let alone driving a car.
Unless you are a Jesus freak (believing in recreation with no strings attached), I’d say every child you bring into this world has as much potential of becoming a terrorist or a Hitler as you think they’ll end up being little angels, Mother Thresas or Einsteins.
Of course, Reprise is entitled to her opinion. But if her daughter went against “every fiber of her mother”, then I’d say the mother required a license to have a child – which apparently she did not obtain.
Hey, wake up. There is a problem with overpopulation on this planet. We have enough third world people multiplying like rabbits. Why didn’t Reprise bring her daughter up in such a way to adopt one of those Iraqi or Afghan orphans, rather than bringing out “one of her own”. Obviously the lady has no idea what Psychology 101 means, let alone equating egocentrism and egomania with “my own genes”.
One Cell, I’m sorry but I don’t have the slightest idea what you are trying to say, either in your first post or your second. Please report back to us when you have gathered your thoughts into a coherent debate.
If your trying to say reprise is a bad mother, I really don’t see where your getting that from. Do you have children? Do you remember being a child? Kids have sex, kids have kids, it’s a fact of life. We can only hope that kids have supportive parents to turn to when they need them.
It seems to me that reprise has shown herself exemplary in this way.
When you are finished putting your 10 adopted Afghani children to bed for the night, careful you don’t even think about having sex. I know you’re licence for that is expired.
One Cell, and how apt your nickname is, if you want to debate my morality or that of my daughter, then you’re quite welcome to call me out in the Pit.
For once I’m actually supporting some of the pro-life “arguments” (if we must call them that). I’d actually like to hear the opinions of very many posters on this MB who have put together in the past rational, well considered, pro-life statements in the past.
Yeah, I want to hear from Polycarp,DDG, Scylla et al. I want to hear from those people because time has taught me that they represent the very best of Christian values. I didn’t mean to leave any names out here, just kind of thought that there isn’t much we agree on but the one thing we usually do agree on is that Polycarp lives the faith that many so-called religious people here only post about.
Yes, you do. And how many idiot drivers do you see on the roads ? And how many disobedient dogs do you see in your neighbourhood ? It sounds good, but it wouldn’t work. And I’m not even going to go into the methods of enforcing child-licencing. :rolleyes:
As for the rest of your post, if you’d like to explain it coherently, I’d be happy to debate this with you. Or if there are any Dopers who know what this person is saying, please translate for me.
Otherwise, feel free to call me to the Pit.
Oh, and there goes your second chance … woosh !
Please prove me wrong, but here is what I believe the OP wanted to debate about:
1- She was (or is) a pro-choice woman. She hasn’t quite made up her mind.
2- Her 15 year-old daughter is pregnant (in sin?) and suddenly, the mother is wondering whether she should have held on to her old beliefs, or should she change her mind, at least on this one occasion.
If you ask me, the lady needs a therapist to sort herself out. She does not need to be at SDMB Great Debates, where we are trying to eradicate ignorance from this planet.
She also appears to look for the company of Polycrap and other Christian buddies for moral support. Sorry lady, this is a debate forum where you seek intellectual challenge rather than your softball compatriots.
I still do not know exactly what she is trying to debate about. Maybe she can articulate what the debate is all about. As one Cell, with my brain limitations, it appears that she is into some soap opera, looking for buddies that agree with her dilemma.
Please refer to the OP where reprise stated at least twice that she IS pro-choice :
and
Where did she say she was wondering about her views ? Hmmm… quote please. Put up or shut up.
I don’t recall anybody asking you, but I guess it is a public board. Please provide some evidence for your statement the reprise needs a therapist. Please also be aware that many people on these boards consider reprise to be capable of playing in GD, something that you haven’t as yet shown.
She was requesting the possibly opposing views of some posters she has grown to respect from reading their posts on various topics, not moral support. Try again !
And calling Polycarp a “softball compatriot” and Polycrap would be laughable if it wasn’t so stupid.
I’m not surprised you have no idea or understanding. :rolleyes:
Why is it so difficult for the rabid “right to lifers” to understand that it is possible to be both pro-choice and anti-abortion at the same time? It’s like eating fatty foods, smoking, drinking, getting high, watching daytime TV, or a host of other activities which the nannies of the world deem “bad for you.” Let people make their own friggin decisions! Jeez!
