See, the problem here is that to me, you might as well say…
“Oreo, you don’t like murder? Then don’t do it. But leave the rest of us free to do as we like.”
Do you understand why I will never be able to agree to that?
And cite? please for your “majority of the people on this planet?” And even if that’s true, just because more people think that way doesn’t make it right.
BTW, just curious, when do you think “life” begins?
But in the meantime, you’d be willing to dismember and kill it? I certainly hope that’s not what you’re saying here.
Sorry, B. Gardener I just reviewed and saw where you posted this:
So I guess I answered my own question.
You know…I think I’m going to respectfully bow out of this thread. I find this debate futile and tiring, and I think I probably shouldn’t have posted in the first place.
Cheers!
Which is by no means typical of pregnancies in general. In other words, even IF abortion is justified in such extreme cases, it doesn’t mean that pregnancy in general is dangerous.
So if a physician gives careful attention to the details of her pregnancy, and if this physician has cautiously concluded that the pregnancy would be fatal to the mother, then we can still proceed as described earlier. If the fetus is viable, induce a delivery (by C-section, if necessary). If the physician judges that it will not reach viability, then a therapeutic abortion would be appropriate. Pro-lifers seldom have a problem with such scenarios.
istara, Polycarp, to clarify my earlier comments to reprise: I was actually, although apparently it read much differently, responding in a dispassionate manner to the statements she made considering herself to be both passionately (her word) pro-choice at the same time denying that it meant pro-abortion. I also qualified it with the notation that I was using the word ‘you’ advisedly. Sorry you didn’t catch this. I hope now you can understand why I can’t reconcile this distinction as being valid, as the actual point of contention is abortion, pro or con. Perhaps it’s quibbling to argue semantics, but words do have meanings to all sides of the argument. Note how we’re focusing on the words human, life, murder, choice, moral.
Now, back to the issue at hand. I am a stepgrandmother of a 6 year old whose mother was and is a single mother. Been there, done that reprise. Although J. is twenty-something rather than a teenager, I sympathize with the situation you find yourself in.
In a larger context, I wish you hadn’t started this OP so personally, as any criticism by pro-lifers could be mistakenly taken as implicit condemnation of your and/or your daughter. So please, don’t take what I say to heart, I mean to argue the issue in general terms only.
I’d like to point out the least persuasive arguments for abortion. The first is the argument that the fetus is only a clump of cells, or incapable of independent life, or survives merely at the behest of the woman (I’ve actually seen this referred to as a parasitic relationship, which is an abhorrent statement on its own). As we are talking about our young, I’m already offended at the willingness to deny the basic recognition of human life in its earliest forms. The reason I find this not persuasive is twofold: pregnancy is absolutely avoidable. Do I need to name all the contraceptive methods available today, up to and including the so-called emergency contraception, or Plan B, etc., which can be taken up to 3 days after otherwise unprotected sex? In addition, not having sex guarantees no pregnancy. While this is booed and hissed at, it is nevertheless true. Why shouldn’t some personal responsibility be expected for a decision of this magnitude? Sexual behavior has several potential repercussions, two of which can be life-threatening, and pregnancy isn’t necessarily the most serious. Which leads me to the second inadequate argument: subjective morality. The argument that each person has to make his/her own decisions regarding morality and that only he/she can make such a personal decision. This is an abrogation of responsibility, in my view. This has, however, relied upon a stubborn refusal to acknowledge basic facts about an unborn child. A man and a woman can only bear human young. It will never be a slug, as was so disdainfully argued, nor will it be a pig,cat,goat, or any other form. It also is life. Check any definition and they will all agree that it is so. We then proceed to argue viability, as if this is a hard and fast timeframe. Children are being born earlier and earlier in the normal pregancy term and surviving, and alternately allowed to be aborted at the same time. This is an insupportable position. Now we’re playing with life or death, based on the whim of the moment.
And this is why the pro-lifers cannot rest on any of the pro-choice arguments. When you accept that we’re talking about all too preventable conception of human life, and then argue fine distinctions to negate the value of said life, you lose the larger point. If it’s human, alive, and all that’s needed to reach viability is continued healthy life of the mother, to then argue that it’s only a clump of cells(which quickly changes during the progression of the pregnancy), it can’t survive on its own (an argument science is removing as an obstacle more and more every day), it doesn’t have higher brain function (although the medical establishment doesn’t agree on when and to what degree that occurs) is to deny that we are sacrificing our young to our own comfort and convenience. And that is intolerable.
OK. To those who believe I shouldn’t have started this thread in the first place because it upsets their sensibilities - don’t read it and don’t contribute to it.
To those who’ve hijacked it to turn it into yet another debate about when life begins and the morality of abortion - start your own damn threads or read some of the excellent debates about this issue which have taken place before.
To those who are actually interested in exploring what “pro-choice” or “pro-life” means to each of us when we actually have to apply it in real-life situations, please keep talking. The mods will take care of those who have no intention of debating.
Apparently there are a few things I should have made clear in the OP : I’ll clarify them now :
My daughter has been taking oral contraceptives;
My daughter is in a relationship which is statistically unlikely to survive long-term simply because they are both so young, but nonetheless it might actually endure;
Not only does my daughter have the support of this side of the family no matter what choice she makes, she also has the support of her boyfriend’s side of the family whether or not they remain together as a couple;
I live in a nation which really does give people choices. No matter what decision my daughter actually makes, the government will provide her with counselling and assistance to cope with that choice. Even if I wasn’t willing to, the government would, no matter what her choice.
To those who’ve emailed me, I’ll get back to you in a couple of hours.
Now can we please get my thread back on track?
Hello, reprise!
Congratulations on being so true to your pro-choice beliefs that you extend to your child the right to make her own decisions! Not every parent would do that! I think she is lucky to have the Mom she has.
Pro-choice and always have been. I don’t believe it is a baby until the mother is ready to accept carrying the baby to term. I’ve had several miscarriages, a stillbirth and an abortion. Each of those potential lives had a different meaning in my life.
When Mr P and I first began our relationship, we made an agreement that we would not terminate any pregnancies that happened. We didn’t conceive until we were ready to though.
Ten years later – if I conceived (and we are very careful not to) I’d terminate that pregnancy. I would lose my mind if I had to carry another high risk pregnancy. I have two sons who are both special needs and there is every reason to believe that any other child with our genetic combination would be affected as well.
I’d like another child, especially if we were blessed with a daughter BUT morally I should not have any more children.
So it’s nature is not based on its intrinsic qualities? Rather, it is based merely on the perception and decision of a particular individual?
For me – yes. I know that for those of you who believe differently, the pregnancy holds a different meaning.
With all due respect, it seems to me that you’re reducing abortion to mere personal preference, like choosing vanilla ice cream over chocolate.
In contrast, pro-lifers believe that it’s a moral decision with grave consequences. Thus, to dismiss it as a matter of mere preference is simply side-stepping the issue.
Are you aware that it is not just a clump of cells? A “clump,” after all, would merely be an amorphous collection of cells. In contrast, the fetus already has its own brainwaves and heartbeat. It also has its own muscular, skeletal, nervous and circulatory systems, among other things. Clearly, it is more than just a clump of cells, as pro-choice apologists have been claiming for decades.
Jubilation T Cornpone:
Most of us think it is a moral issue too.
Many of us think you, along with the rest of the folks who would abridge abortion rights, are on the wrong side of it.
God intended females to be, at times, simultaneously one being who was pregnant and two beings, one growing inside the other. Give up on reconciling those truths into a single truth more primal than the other. You can’t. Unless you are her. The reconciliation of that is her responsibility. She gets that responsibility (and authority, and freedom to choose) along with menstrual cramps, PMS, bloating, eclampsia, mood swings, periods, maxi pads, the thrill of childbirth, episiotomies, post-pregnancy incontinency, weight gain from pregnancy, and a host of other things that potentially come with being female.
In which case, I hope that you also recognize the invalidity of saying “Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one.”
So a woman can actually be two beings? She can have two pairs of hands? Two hearts? Two livers?
What do mean by reconciling those truths? Are you saying that only the mother can understand how she is simultaneously two human beings? Also, why should we conclude that her perception is the correct one?
What do you mean by “For me – yes”? Do you mean that you believe it to be true? That is, that it’s only a baby based on the mother’s perception, rather than its intrinsic qualities?
And if that is what you meant, how did you come to the conclusion that its “babyhood” is determined by the mother’s perception?
That is inaccurate:
http://www.carleton.ca/~claughli/dn-art1a.htm
I am mind-numbingly weary of all the self-rightous christians so confident that they have everything figured out that they want to make the most basic and fundamental decisions about reproduction for everyone.
reprise, I don’t know if I can offer anything except long-distance support for you and your family as you negotiate this one.
I’m firmly pro-choice too. I make absolutely no apologies for my views and refuse to debate them with anyone…pro-choice, to me, means that each person calls this one for himself or herself.
Hang in there, support and love your daughter, and keep your fingers crossed. No matter what happens, it sounds like you have a strong and loving family, and I don’t think that will change.
I was SO unhappy with my 3rd pregnancy that I would gladly have had an abortion if I could have done so without my dh’s knowledge. Now, nearly three years later, I can’t imagine life without my little fella, or without his little sister. OTOH, had I not had them, life would still be good, and I would still be happy with my circumstances.
Best wishes.
~k
Reprise - I hope things work out as well as they possibly can. There’s no easy path in this situation, and I just hope you all find the choices you make now turn out for the best in the future. Your love and help will make this easier for your daughter, and she’s lucky to have you.
I consider myself pro-choice, but I don’t think I’m pro-abortion. To say I’m pro-abortion would mean that I think abortion is a good thing, which I don’t (does anyone?). But I do think that every woman should have the right to choose for herself. In a similar vein, I think pro-lifers would agree that it’s wrong to say they are anti-choice. They aren’t against women having choices, they are against abortion. The fact that abortion is a choice is secondary to them. Well, the fact that a choice is abortion is secondary to me.
My aunt is one of the women who has had her life potentially shortened by giving birth - she suffered diabetes throughout two of her three pregnancies, but also strained her heart giving birth to her first child in a 36 hour labor. All her children were loved and wanted, and I don’t think she has any regrets, but she’s one of the invisible statistics - a women who, 17 years after the fact, still faces an increased risk of early death because of childbirth. Don’t say it doesn’t happen.
It’s a bit silly to presume that all pro life folks are Christian…especially when a cursory examination of abortion threads on the SDMB proves otherwise.
Well I’m not sure what you were trying to debate then. If your premise is that you are not “pro abortion” in the sense that you think that there should be more abortions in the world…but rather you are “pro choice”, you’ll not find a lot of disagreement over semantics from MOST pro life posters that I’ve seen serioulsy debating the issue on the boards. (although I note that “some” people who object to the term “pro abortion” have no problem with the equally incorrect and silly “anti choice”).
I will note that there HAVE been some posters in other threads who have self idetified as “pro abortion”…and do favor more abortions.
If your premise is that there is a spectrum of “pro choice” opinions…again, not much disagreement on that notion either.
It can’t be that surprising that a debate over the terms “pro choice”, “pro abortion” and “pro life” includes debates over what constitutes “life” or a “human being” or “personhood”.
it IS unfortunate that there are a small number of folks on all sides of the debate who resort to name calling and petty insults.