Pepperlandgirl, I recently had a pregnancy scare, too. Three positive tests !:eek:
I went through a huge range of emotions, though never once doubted my decision (made years ago) to abort should I ever fall pregnant. I take a pregnancy test every two months due to my paranoia and fear of falling pregnant.
To an outsider, my marriage is in the perfect position to begin a family (happy committed marriage, financially stable, etc). Inside, I was prepared to shove a coathanger up there myself (or suicide, as a last result) should I be unable to access a medical abortion.
Some people just shouldn’t have children. For many reasons. And some shouldn’t continue pregnancies either.
I can’t wait for the day when sterilisations are cheap, easy to get and fully reversible.
I think one thing it’s important to point out is that even though many illegal abortions might have been performed by medical practitioners, they weren’t generally performed under the kinds of conditions we would expect to find in a hospital or a day surgery clinic.
Cite, please? Since you unequivocally say that these abortions were not generally performed under hospital conditions, then you presumably have a citation for that information.
In other words, the then-president of Planned Parenthood was extolling the safety with which abortions were being performed, prior to Roe v. Wade. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t, on the one hand, proclaim that abortions were being performed by licensed physicians and with a tremendous safety record, and simultaneously lament the thousands of women who were allegedly dying each year under an abortionist’s knife.
Moreover, even if we grant your claim, the Department of Health statistics still record that an extraordinarily low number of women were dying due to illegal abortions. (See previous cites for details.) This wasn’t necessarily due to the operating conditions either, as even legal abortions can be fatal. So apart from the premise of back-alley abortions being incorrect, we also have positive evidence that the alleged thousandths of deaths per year were quite fictional.
“Yes, having a kid young CAN ruin your life but how can putting a kid up for adoption do so?”
Yeah, really. I mean, all you have to do is sign the forms and- ta da- no more baby, it’s off to a rich, loving family (especially if it’s not white and unhealthy). No morning sickness, health complications, being fired, dropping out of school, social stigma…
As opposed to, if abortion is legal…a lot of babies’ lives will be destroyed. Somehow I don’t see the difference between the unborn child’s right to live and the mother’s right to live. I think they both have an equal right to the lives God gave them. And I don’t care if pepperlandgirl and the rest of the world hates me for saying that, either. The unborn child’s right to life, IMO, is and should be equal to an adult’s right to life. How dare anyone terminate the life of one of God’s children just for convenience, or because they’re afraid it will ruin their own life? This is pure selfishness. “Sorry, my darling baby, but I value my education more than I value your sacred rights, so, snip-snip, you’re outta there!”
Listalis, you’re being very flippant of the choice to have an abortion, so I’m not sure if you’ll respond to discussion of your post, but just in case, I’ll respond briefly.
I am pro-choice. I do think that embryos and fetuses are alive and, if it were possible without infringing upon the rights of others, I would be happy to accord them rights. However, pregnancy is a situation where it is impossible for the mother and the child to have equal rights because they share the same body. One or the other’s rights over the body will trump the other. A woman cannot have the same rights and freedoms as other citizens if the unborn child does. That’s just a simple fact.
My personal view is that I think it is incompatible with the notion that all people should have the right to life, liberty, and property without having the right to control one’s own body. Thus, I cannot extend personhood to the pre-born for the simple reason that to do so would rescind equal rights for women.
You may consider it selfish to have an abortion. I personally believe that I would be ethically incapable of having one. However, my ethics and my judgements are for me – not to inflict on society because I feel that I know better. You are surely not in favor of outlawing being selfish, so I’ll assume that was simply an emotional response.
Pro-choicers are not out to destroy rights of the child, but rather to protect those of the mother.
And, JThunder: I find it offensive that you have pointed out the most extreme individuals (such as those that favor infanticide, which is, of course, not even close to being representative of most pro-choice people) while arguing your side. Should I bring up the morality of the Nuremburg Files and those who murder abortion doctors in order to ‘disprove’ your arguments?
Jthunder that is actually a good argument to show that abortion will continue even if you ban it. The reality is that well to do people will continue with abortions and the authorities (connected with the well to do) will look the other way, just like is done in Latin America. While this was not really the reason why abortion is legal now, the reality is that poor woman will suffer more for not having access to abortion. Hypocrisy is really the key here.
And since I have already demonstrated that virtually all your cites are twisting and not telling the whole truth. Your dependence on them already has been shown to lower any respect in your “facts” or arguments. You need to stop it. You will not convince anybody that is pro-choice, with such lame tactics.
1-I don’t believe we are all God’s children–so that arguement won’t work on me.
2-My education is more important because I’ve worked on that for 20 years. If I have kid, it’ll be because the contraceptives failed during 5 minutes of fun.
3-It would not be my “darling baby” because I don’t want kids. I don’t even like kids.
4-If it is pure selfishness, so be it. I’m selfish. I also know that if I have a child, I will resent it. How many people want a child raised by a mother who will resent its very life?
5-I don’t feel an unborn fetus has an equal right to life as I do, because it’s at the sacrifice of my life. That’s not equal–that’s saying an unborn, unwanted child is actually more important than a mother’s life, and I don’t believe that.
There was a time, late that night during the scare, where it occurred to me that I would leave my husband if he tried to stop me. I love him more than anything–I have for four years, and plan on doing it for a life-time. But I refuse to let him dictate (or anybody) what I can and cannot do. Becaues it occurred to me that even though he provided the sperm, and while he promises to be there, it ultimately is all on me.
But is a woman free of the task of supporting her own children once they are out of the womb? Does the woman who has two children have the same rights and freedoms as single, childless people? Seems like she is burdened while they are free, right? That shouldn’t be. I hereby declare that every mother and father who have children to support are less free than those couples who are childless. Those children are infringing on their parents’ freedom! Society forces the parents to raise those children and provide for their needs. How drastically unfair! Those children must die so that their parents will be more free.
You’re making several assumptions that I don’t believe are warranted. To wit:
A fetus’s body is ONLY part of the woman’s body–it has no body of its own.
A fetus has no rights because it is within the woman’s body.
Other people have the right to take away the fetus’s God-given rights.
There are no consequences for our actions.
People don’t have the right to make laws that affect others’ decisions.
I don’t have all the answers, and I believe that an abortion may be justified for the following reasons:
If the fetus is unviable and unable to survive.
Rape or incest.
Saving the life of the mother if the pregnancy is directly endangering her.
I don’t believe an abortion is justified for the following reasons:
“A baby would [gasp!] inconvenience me!”
“It’s my body and I can do what I want with it.” (This is partially true, but again, there are consequences to our actions that we cannot escape. A murderer, if caught, usually doesn’t get away with it. He goes to jail and pays for his crime.)
“My contraceptives didn’t work.”
“It will make me flabby and unattractive.”
“I can’t support the baby on my salary, so I must kill it.”
“A baby would change my life in ways I don’t like.”
Just my own opinions, of course, but I think they’re valid.
By the way, I also am pro-choice, in that I believe that everyone should be free to make their own decisions. But like the murderer who must face the consequences for his actions, those who have abortions must also face the consequences for their actions. The murderer is free to choose whether he will kill another human being or not. He is not free of the consequences of that choice. I believe that God imposes a heavy penalty on murderers of all types, including abortionists.
“Ah,” but you say, “that’s just YOUR morality. You shouldn’t force your own belief system on others.” This is partially true. However, isn’t society forcing its own belief system on the murderer when it sends him to jail and takes away his freedom? That’s not right! The poor murderer should be free of society’s laws, because he does not share society’s belief that murder is wrong.
This is just a hodge-podge of why I believe abortion to be wrong. If it were a term paper, it’d be less chaotic and disjointed, but I’m writing first-draft here, people. Try to bear with me.
You’re failing to consider the context of that statement. The assertion was raised that abortion must surely reduce instances of child abuse. In response, I cited statistical evidence which shows and opposite trend, and provided evidence that pro-choice thinking can likewise be used to justify infanticide. The latter was used to provide an explanation for how the proliferation of abortion might be causing this increase in child abuse.
Does the thinking of Peter Singer and other pro-infanticide pro-choicers automatically imply that abortion is wrong? I don’t think so. However, we are talking about the very specific claim that abortion reduces child abuse, and their rhetoric does illustrate how pro-choice reasoning makes infanticide (and thus, child abuse) sound attractive and justifiable.
“But wait!” one might object. “You still can’t prove that abortion is at fault! You can’t prove that it did indeed result in a rise in child abuse!” True enough. However, by that same token, the pro-choice side has no proof that it reduces child abuse either. We do, however, have evidence for the opposite effect — both statistical evidence, and the pro-choice rhetoric used by proponents of infanticide.
Besides which, the mother’s life is NOT at stake, except in the most extreme and unusual situations. The overwhelming majority of abortions are performed for reasons more mundane that that of the mother’s life.
OK, but I do. I think of the two of us, I’m being more realistic about what having a child actually means. Also, you have to realize that if you have children already, or you want children, then you are in a place in your life where these reasons don’t make sense to you. But what I’m asking you to understand is that these reasons make sense to a lot of other people.
#3 especially bothers me. If a person is going through all the trouble to use contraceptives, it must be that person must not want a child, correct? So why should that person be, in effect, punished because something happened out of their control? There is a reason I spent money every month for my pills, the condoms, and the extra spermicide. It adds up. I don’t do it because I think condoms feel good, and constantly worrying is fun. I do it because I’m trying to be responsible now, and avoid abortions. However, if the condom breaks, if the pill stops working for just one day, I’m not gonna shrug and throw my life down the tubes because I had sex with my husband.
#2-what kind of consequences? Hell’s eternal damnation? You’re going to have to do better than that. From where I’m sitting, the only consequences I see is the ability to continue persuing my education–I certainly won’t be sent to jail.
#4-I’m already flabby and unattractive…
#5-What would you suggest? Getting a better job? Ooops, can’t because I had to drop out of school. Picking up a second job? Great idea…only who will take care of the baby while you’re working for 16 hours a day? Daycare is expensive, and not all of us have relatives. Go on welfare? According to millions of Americans, only sluts and/or lazy bums would use welfare. What if I can’t afford to clothe the child? What if I can’t afford to give him the proper food? What if I can’t afford to eat the proper food myself, and as a result, my breastmilk hurts him/her more than it helps?
#6-I’m not convinced that I should inconvience my life for a child I don’t want. A life that I have planned and worked damn hard to achieve. I didn’t have everything handed to me by mommy and daddy–they aren’t helping at all. It’s all up to me. Considering the fact that I’m 19, living on my own, going to a very good, private school, paying my bills on time, and staying healthy, I think I’m doing a good job of living my life. A baby would change that—in very negative ways.
This is related to #1.
Now, I’ve explained my reasoning, please, explain yours.
“At the sacrifice of [your] life?” Are you seriously suggesting that you would lose your life if you had to carry a fetus to term?
It seems to me that this really is not a case of choosing between the life of the fetus and the life of the mother. Clearly, the unborn has far, far, FAR more to lose than the mother does.
It may be tragic, certainly… but the language which you use is merely figurative. We shouldn’t characterize this as a choice between your life and that of the child.
Can having a baby seriously disrupt someone’s life? Certainly so. Can it be devastating? Sometimes, yes… but that’s not a valid reason for terminating its life.
Why not? Think about this, if I had a child right now, my life–not my biological life, but the life I am building for myself, the life I want–will be destroyed. By “life” that is what I mean–the life I’m building for myself and with my husband. If that life is destroyed, I will be resentful, I will be angry, and this will manifest itself somehow. Probably in the directin of my child. I don’t want to end up hating a child–especially when technically the child is blameless. Added to that resentment is the fact that I never want a child, I don’t like children, and I’m doing everything in my power to stop that.
So why is it acceptable for an unwanted child to destroy my “life”? And why is it unacceptable for me to stop that from happening? To me that indicates that an unborn, unwanted child is more important than the blood, sweat, and tears that I’ve put into my goals. Why?
JThunder: Why do you say that fetus == baby? (And since when did we use C++ boolean operators for true/false?) I explained my (and presumably pepperlandgirl’s) reasoning above. Sorry if I didn’t cite definitions for fetus, zygote, etc, but I thought they were common knowledge.
Of course, abortions will continue to exist… but so what? Murder, rape and theft have been illegal for centuries, and yet they continue to exist. Should we lift the bans on muder, rape and theft, since people continue to perform these heinous deeds?
Personally, I think it’s ridiculous to claim that we should not hinder murder/rape/theft/abortion, simply because we can not eradicate these acts.
Do you deny that Mary Calderone claimed – prior to Roe v. Wade – that both legal and illegal abortions were very much safe? Do you deny that she said that the overwhelming majority of abortions were actually performed by licensed, professional physicians? I think you need to present a stronger argument that a mere accusation of word-twisting.
Moreover, you yourself just argued that if we can’t eliminate <fill-in-the-blank>, we may as well let it continue. With all due respect, I don’t think you should be accusing anyone of twisting the facts.
Because the right to life is the most fundamental right there is. Without it, somone can not love, grow, earn income, seek pleasure, express oneself or vote. Clearly, your own personal desires and aspirations – however grand they may be – do not trump the unborn’s right to life.
Your life may suffer a setback – even a tremendous setback – but your most fundamental right will remain intact. Not so for the unborn.
I didn’t, although I do believe that to be true. Rather, I’m responding to pepperlandgirl’s claim that “having a baby” would destroy her life, and that this would therefore justify abortion. In other words, in this context, the term “baby” refers to the fully born child, rather than the unborn.
As seen in many previous threads, I do believe that the unborn is a baby… but I’m not resting my arguments in this thread on that claim.