S/O unplanned pregnancy

[Melissa in Australia]

I really wouldn't call 19-20 a teen pregnancy, just a few years ago most people were married at that age..... I was married at that age.:D

[mommaduck]

I believe the logic is that the babies are going to be aborted either way, but by keeping it legal, at least the women don't also die or get injured in the process. I do, however, agree that it's faulty logic. First of all, I think the fact that it is legal leaves a lot of people with the impression that it can't possibly be something "bad" -- because if it were really that bad it would be illegal! So that, in and of itself, is like a stamp of approval, and probably leads many women to chose abortion when they wouldn't otherwise. Secondly, I (may sound paranoid but still) believe that the dangers of illegal abortion have been overly dramatized, while the dangers of legal abortion have been suppressed and swept under the rug. I don't think that the dangers of the two types of abortion are as radically different as we've been lead to believe. Women DO die from legal abortions, and many are left injured and infertile. In fact, I really believe that the pro-life side has a more powerful argument based on concern for women's safety then the pro-choice side does.

 

:iagree:

[mommaduck]

I really wouldn't call 19-20 a teen pregnancy, just a few years ago most people were married at that age..... I was married at that age.:D

:iagree: Started dating my husband at 15, engaged at 17, married at 19, first baby at 21.

[eight_gregorys]

I believe the logic is that the babies are going to be aborted either way, but by keeping it legal, at least the women don't also die or get injured in the process. I do, however, agree that it's faulty logic. First of all, I think the fact that it is legal leaves a lot of people with the impression that it can't possibly be something "bad" -- because if it were really that bad it would be illegal! So that, in and of itself, is like a stamp of approval, and probably leads many women to chose abortion when they wouldn't otherwise. Secondly, I (may sound paranoid but still) believe that the dangers of illegal abortion have been overly dramatized, while the dangers of legal abortion have been suppressed and swept under the rug. I don't think that the dangers of the two types of abortion are as radically different as we've been lead to believe. Women DO die from legal abortions, and many are left injured and infertile. In fact, I really believe that the pro-life side has a more powerful argument based on concern for women's safety then the pro-choice side does.

 

GretaLynn,

 

Thank you for clarifying what you meant. While I'm Pro-life, but I can appreciate where you are coming from.

[Sara R]

my mother had no family support, had 3 children and was just 19 when widowed.

 

I'm glad things worked out so well for your mother.

 

I see becoming widowed as different. In that case, you still have a father. He's just dead, through (hopefully) no fault of his own. Hopefully his memory can be kept alive through the mother, and his influence still felt. Choosing to never form the family in the first place is a different situation, showing the child a different example of "fatherhood."

[Renee in NC]

From what I've seen in such cases, such young mothers usually develop a kind of "sibling relationship" with their baby, rather than mother-child one - which is understandable, but quite bad if you ask me. The child is put into one quite unhealthy situation, of being basically raised by grandparents (yeah, a mother can work and all, but she is not fully financially stable while she still lives with her parents, etc.) and of knowing, for the rest of his/her life, that they're a "side effect" of their mother's teenage irresponsibility, not a wanted and a planned baby.

And yet, I don't take away the logical possibility of those young girls to be good mothers. I haven't seen it myself in practice, but I do believe it's possible - just not common. I guess it depends a lot on the girl in question.

 

 

That is a side effect of our culture, though, in that we still see and treat 14 and 15 year olds as children. There are cultures (even within our own country) where young mothers are the norm and it works out fine in many cases. I'm not talking about typical American teen mother situations (which often do seem to work out the way you mention.)

 

Age would not matter to me and I would be even *more* likely to try and talk a very young girl out of adoption. (Abortion is never an option here that we would encourage.)

[Mad Jenny Flint]

Stupid, impulsive decisions can have some major consequences. I would stand by my child no matter what and help them through any problems they have a result of their decisions- but I would expect them to rise to the occasion.

 

I don't see myself raising my grandchildren because of the repeated, consistent wrong action of my children. I have other plans for my life when my own children are grown. However, I am not in that position, and really, what do I know? It's like saying you would run or you would fight if attacked in an alley- you don't really know until you are there.

 

I just know I want to raise my kids to be the best they can be, and that everyone makes mistakes on occasion. I would want to support them to the extent necessary so they could then take over and deal with the situation themselves, and quickly.

[Sara R]

Age would not matter to me and I would be even *more* likely to try and talk a very young girl out of adoption. (Abortion is never an option here that we would encourage.)

 

Age would only matter to me if the child were so young and physically immature (say, age 12-13) that it made delivery dangerous. Not that that would push us to abortion (which would also be traumatic), but it would be a factor worthy of consideration.

 

I'm all for adoption. A child deserves a mother and a father, married to each other, living in the same house. No unmarried teenage girl, no matter how mature, can be her child's father.

[theresatwist]

I believe the logic is that the babies are going to be aborted either way, but by keeping it legal, at least the women don't also die or get injured in the process. I do, however, agree that it's faulty logic. First of all, I think the fact that it is legal leaves a lot of people with the impression that it can't possibly be something "bad" -- because if it were really that bad it would be illegal! So that, in and of itself, is like a stamp of approval, and probably leads many women to chose abortion when they wouldn't otherwise. Secondly, I (may sound paranoid but still) believe that the dangers of illegal abortion have been overly dramatized, while the dangers of legal abortion have been suppressed and swept under the rug. I don't think that the dangers of the two types of abortion are as radically different as we've been lead to believe. Women DO die from legal abortions, and many are left injured and infertile. In fact, I really believe that the pro-life side has a more powerful argument based on concern for women's safety then the pro-choice side does.

 

Yes, I agree with you that abortion whether it's legal or illegal can be very dangerous to the mother. I think it is more dangerous when it is illegal, but the you are right that there are risks either way and that we perhaps don't pay as much attention to that as we should. I think there is an important difference though. When abortion is legal if a woman experiences injury or disease as a result she will not be afraid to seek medical treatment for her problems. If abortion is outlawed this will not be the case.

 

The law doesn't establish morals. It is immoral to cheat on your spouse. But it's not illegal to cheat on your spouse, we don't send folks to prison for that. It's immoral to gamble off your salary and be left with nothing to feed your family, but it isn't illegal to do so. So I think if people are under the misconception that if something is legal then it can't be all that bad they've got a lot to learn. Now this doesn't mean that I don't think that government should play a role in regulating people's behavior. However, making a certain action illegal doesn't always have the intended consequence. I think history has shown that that is true in the case of abortion. Outlawing it doesn't mean it doesn't happen, all it means is that it happens underground and becomes far riskier to the health and well-being of the mother.

 

There are other examples of this: the law tells us that cocaine is bad. I don't think anyone here would dispute that. But it's very clear that outlawing cocaine has not succeeded in abolishing cocaine use. All it has done is driven it underground. You can buy cocaine easily at my local high school.

 

I think we should work to reduce the number of abortions in this country as much as possible. However, I think we should do that through sex ed and other measures, not through changes in the law. I don't want to get into an argument about abstinence education here, but I believe that statistics show that in states where abstinence only education is taught there are far higher rates of teen pregnancy. If I recall correctly, Texas and Alaska lead in that respect.

 

As for guns, yes they absolutely kill people. People with guns kill people. Speaking of innocent children, look at all the school shootings that take place in the country every year! We even have elementary school student killing other elementary school students.

 

With all that said, I'm going to end my participation in this thread. Cheers.

 

To clarify: I am NOT advocating legalizing cocaine. I did not elaborate there because I didn't want to get into a discussion of drug policy. I am simply using that case as another example.

Edited July 16, 2009 by theresatwist
clarification

[katemary63]

nevermind

Edited July 16, 2009 by katemary63

[Peek a Boo]

I am pro-choice. I am not pro-choice because I don't realize that abortion means killing another human being. I am pro-choice because when abortion is illegal, as we've seen in our own history, the number of abortions don't decrease, abortion is simply driven underground where many more mothers end up injured, disease, or dead as a result. I believe the best way to reduce to number of abortion is through sex education that teaches teens about contraceptive use.

 

Of course, I don't support infanticide. To say that someone who is pro-choice might as well support infanticide is like saying that someone who believes in upholding our second amendment rights supports murder.

 

Intentionally killing another human IS murder: the intentional killing of another human.

Even in self defense [which is why a few people WON't kill even to save their own --or their children's-- lives].

We justify murder via self defense for legal reasons, call it homicide, and take into account the motive/intent of the person that was killed.

A developing human in the womb has no motive or intent to harm.

Aborting for convenience is like shooting a salesman because he slipped on your property, broke his back, and wouldn't/couldn't leave.

And mom didn't want to wait.

 

I'm anti-abortion because a Basic Civil Right should be the right to life, and that should apply to ALL humans, at every stage of development. regardless the "possible relationship issues" that crop up. Basic rights are not taken away because someone else is an idiot.

 

We don't outlaw abortion hoping that the "intended consequences" turn out as we expected:

we outlaw murder and rape and theft even tho those things keep happening [and people go to even greater lengths to cover them up] because it's the right thing to do.

we outlaw abortion because it's the right thing to do.

 

now I'll also add that since my son would have no say whatsoever in whether his child would be aborted, he should be able to terminate his rights [and need to pay child support] as long as women are allowed to choose to do the same via abortion. As long as women have a legal option for choosing to not have the responsibility of parenthood, so should men.

 

not that I would encourage him to do that, but there should be some parental equality under the law.

[cathmom]

I really wouldn't call 19-20 a teen pregnancy, just a few years ago most people were married at that age..... I was married at that age.:D

 

 

Yes, a long time ago I wrote a report that made the case that the issue is not age, but marital status. It does bother me that pregnancies of legally adult women who are 18 or 19 are included in teen pregnancy statistics to beef up numbers.

[Melissa in Australia]

I'm glad things worked out so well for your mother.

 

I see becoming widowed as different. In that case, you still have a father. He's just dead, through (hopefully) no fault of his own. Hopefully his memory can be kept alive through the mother, and his influence still felt. Choosing to never form the family in the first place is a different situation, showing the child a different example of "fatherhood."

 

I am glad things worked out for my mother as well. it was only because of her strength of character, not because of any influence still felt by my father , who killed himself. my step father is the example of "fatherhood " that I look up to, he is my father, not the person who started my life.

[lionfamily1999]

I believe the logic is that the babies are going to be aborted either way, but by keeping it legal, at least the women don't also die or get injured in the process. I do, however, agree that it's faulty logic. First of all, I think the fact that it is legal leaves a lot of people with the impression that it can't possibly be something "bad" -- because if it were really that bad it would be illegal! So that, in and of itself, is like a stamp of approval, and probably leads many women to chose abortion when they wouldn't otherwise. Secondly, I (may sound paranoid but still) believe that the dangers of illegal abortion have been overly dramatized, while the dangers of legal abortion have been suppressed and swept under the rug. I don't think that the dangers of the two types of abortion are as radically different as we've been lead to believe. Women DO die from legal abortions, and many are left injured and infertile. In fact, I really believe that the pro-life side has a more powerful argument based on concern for women's safety then the pro-choice side does.

I don't think there would be the same number of abortions, if the practice was illegal. As you said, legality implies that it is acceptable. If society's acceptance was removed, then some women would go with society and decide, it is not the right thing to do.

 

Also, while there are some in political circles that like to say that thousands of women would die every year, that number is WAY out of proportion, and based on a study done in 1936. In 1973 (the last year before RvW) 39 women died from illegal abortions. Advances in modern science, the internet, and improved emergency services would make it more likely that LESS women would die today.

 

I'm sorry to see you bowed out Greta Lynne, your posts made me think.

[Greta]

I'm sorry to see you bowed out Greta Lynne, your posts made me think.

 

Thank you for such a kind compliment! But I realized I was turning it into an abortion debate, and that wasn't the OP's intention with this particular thread. Back to that original topic though, in thinking about this, in really imagining myself in that situation, I think it would be extremely difficult for me to support my daughter in giving up a child for adoption. I would want my dh and I to adopt the baby in that case. I have wanted another child for years now, and I just can't imagine the heartbreak of saying goodbye to a grandchild like that. Naturally, however, it is my hope that my granchild(ren) will come into this world via a loving, stable marriage. That would be ideal for them and for my dd. But I will love them all no matter what!

[lionfamily1999]

Thank you for such a kind compliment! But I realized I was turning it into an abortion debate, and that wasn't the OP's intention with this particular thread. Back to that original topic though, in thinking about this, in really imagining myself in that situation, I think it would be extremely difficult for me to support my daughter in giving up a child for adoption. I would want my dh and I to adopt the baby in that case. I have wanted another child for years now, and I just can't imagine the heartbreak of saying goodbye to a grandchild like that. Naturally, however, it is my hope that my granchild(ren) will come into this world via a loving, stable marriage. That would be ideal for them and for my dd. But I will love them all no matter what!

The same reasons that some give for hoping their dd would choose abortion, is why I would be leery of adoption. There ARE lots of good kids looking for homes and I couldn't see adding to their ranks, or someone from MY family being the reason these kids WITHOUT a family continue waiting, iykwIm. It's funny, because I don't doubt they COULD find a loving family, it's that I would be keeping another more needy child from getting that family that bothers me, lol.

 

If dd was super young (12-15) I would adopt. I can't see her keeping the child or managing the responsibility at that age, and the 16 year difference in our ages would make it pretty easy for me (I would still be young enough, iykwIm).

 

I think the only thing I really could not support would be abortion. I posted that earlier, though, so I won't go back into it ;)

[KidsHappen]

I would support my dd however I had to do it no matter how hard it would be for me personally.

[theresatwist]

Okay, this has been bugging me so I am going to respond in as calm a manner as I can.

 

I am pro-choice. I see this as a political view, not as a personal view. The difference? I have looked at statistics from organizations such as the UN that show that outlawing abortion does not reduce the number of abortions that take place. From that, I understand that if my desire is to lower (and ideally abolish) the number of abortions making abortion illegal will not bring about the change I desire. I would absolutely support a Senate resolution that declared abortion to be a type of murder. I would not support legislation that outlaws abortion because studies show that all that does is put an additional life in more danger: the life of the mother. Yes, abortion whether legal or illegal carries serious health risks. Giving birth carries serious health risks! But when abortion is legal women are able to get the medical care they need if something should go wrong. Outlawing abortion would make a moral statement; it would not reduce the number of abortions. Moral statements are nice, but I'm looking for more that that.

 

How do I do that? I support measures that have been shown to be effective in reducing the number of abortions, to name just a few: comprehensive sex ed, federal funding to help young single mothers (or fathers) who have chosen life, but lack resources, free babysitting facilities at high schools and universities, and finally reform and expansion of our adoption program.

 

My personal view? I would choose life. People in my own pro-choice family have chosen life.

 

Yet somehow some on other side of this debate choose to characterize many people such as myself as "abortionists" out to kill unborn babies. No, I don't think so. We have a difference of opinion on what characterizes effective and meaningful law and how to best advance our moral ideals.

Edited July 16, 2009 by theresatwist

[Catherine]

I agree 100% that supporting life involves much more than legally mandating that every pregnancy continues to term. It means supporting mothers (and fathers) in ways that are substantive and meaningful. Young unmarried, pregnant women need far more than reassurance that they are morally right for continuing a pregnancy to term, particularly when there will be no want of approbrium for a out of wedlock pregnancy, in addition to the humiliations of public assistance and the derailment of life plans.

 

Single mothers find a very difficult road ahead and without extraordinary strength of character (my hat is totally off to those of you who've shared your stories here) and\or family support, raising a child alone is very difficult.

 

Here in my home city, there are hundreds of children waiting to be adopted, most of them African-American. Realistically, many of them will grow up in foster care. I'm sure many large cities are in the same situation.

[HeatherLynn]

I would try desperately to convince the teens to allow us (or someone else) to adopt the child, but yes, I would care for them regardless. I am sure there would be a lot of things to work out and they would have to grow up really quickly, but we would do it.

 

I agree. What is done is done, and we would just do the best we could.

[Barb_]

I didn't read all of the replies on this one... but, I recently went out for the day with my 19 yog and while we were running errands, we bought a pregnancy test for her... She isn't allowed to sleep with her boyfriend at my house, but things happened elsewhere...

 

That day I was kind and loving. I told her that if there was a baby growing inside her womb, that she needs to love it right away. She was ablsolutely receptive to that. We talked about options for adopting the baby out... us helping her if she chose to raise the baby herself...

 

For me, finding myself in that situation... I have no choice but to love my child and help my child love the baby inside...

 

Am I reading this right to understand that your daughter is also pregnant? :grouphug:

[Peek a Boo]

I have looked at statistics from organizations such as the UN that show that outlawing abortion does not reduce the number of abortions that take place.

 

agreed.

I'm not anti-abortion because I want to see the number of abortions reduced [separate issue]: I'm anti-abortion cuz I believe that ALL humans have a right to life, and that NOBODY has a right to kill another human for convenience.

 

 

......But when abortion is legal women are able to get the medical care they need if something should go wrong. Outlawing abortion would make a moral statement; it would not reduce the number of abortions. Moral statements are nice, but I'm looking for more that that.

 

Me too. The two are not mutually exclusive. However, as with the slavery/ racism/ bigotry issues [learning from history], legally stating the obvious moral truth helps steer the process down the proper course.

most anti-abortion people do a pretty good job of putting their money and actions where their mouth is. But like the other thread, that help isn't unnoticed: it is absolutely turned down cold.

 

However, I'm pretty sure that what you consider appropriate ways to help and what i consider appropriate ways to help are going to be vastly different based on how we view the gvt's role and budgeting.

 

Yet somehow some on other side of this debate choose to characterize many people such as myself as "abortionists" out to kill unborn babies. No, I don't think so. We have a difference of opinion on what characterizes effective and meaningful law and how to best advance our moral ideals.

Not necessarily.

unless "you" is considered a general term in which case yes, there are abortionists who are looking at the $ angle.

--you [as you just described yourself] are characterized as someone who is willing to fight to let unborn babies be killed, because that is exactly what you ARE doing. unless you are NOT involved in campaigning or voting for "reproductive rights" issues.......?? in which case, you'd be characterized as someone who sat by and watched others make sure it was legal to kill developing humans for convenience.

characterizations aren't always palatable.

 

What do you choose if you're pro choice?

What are the choices?

death, and life.

One human chooses to kill another.

That's the choice you are defending.

You are defending the right to take an innocent life w/o consequence or due process.

You are defending the right to kill.

You are defending the right to choose death.

 

The right to choose life is not what's under attack.

 

I'm not anti-choice: there are plenty of choices in how to deal w/ a living human being.

 

I am anti-death.

 

I do understand that sometimes "the choice" to become pregnant was taken away. i still think that's a tough sentence: to execute another human because someone's choice was taken away. Two wrongs and all that.

 

[copied from http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14759]

[st_claire]

in that case, why not work to make infanticide legal as people are fighting to keep abortion legal?

we could cure a lot of the adoption problems by just killing off the unwanted humans of any age.

an unwanted human at any age of development is still an unwanted human.

 

The thing is, a fetus is not a human. A human has rights, and as such cannot be killed. A fetus has no such rights, and even if it did, the mother would retain the right to her womb and as such could remove the fetus from it.

 

I believe in everyone have rights and freedoms as long as they don't infringe on other's rights or freedoms.

[st_claire]

Unfortunately, there are people with stclair's mindset that are already doing this and trying to make it legal.

 

 

Please don't speak about someone's mindset when you really have no idea what it is.

[Tree House Academy]

Being that kid who got pregnant and married (in that order) at 19, I was ever so grateful for all the help we received from family early on. However, there has to be a good line drawn between "helping" and "RAISING your grandchild for the parents." I want my kids to be responsible and getting yourself into a situation that sucks is not a good reason to back out on responsibilities. I didn't when I found myself there and I absolutely will not raise the child for my child unless there were extenuating circumstances.

[st_claire]

Do you really think that this information is unavailable? Maybe there are a few teens out there that don't know about the Pill or condoms, but only very few. Failure rates of contraception for teens are huge, because they are naturally more fertile, and because using birth control takes discipline (and I think it's fair to say that teens choosing to have sex outside of marriage are even less disciplined than teens in general). Even today, with all of the contraception out there, all unwanted pregnancies are caused by sex. The fallacy that birth control prevents pregnancy 100% of the time has also caused many teen pregnancies.

 

 

Birth control doesn't really take discipline. Depo-vera is a shot once every 3 months. And a condom doesn't take any advanced planning really besides carrying one. And I don't think there is any relationship between sex and discipline.

[st_claire]

Should we legalize drugs or prostitution? How about we allow teenagers to drink to reduce drunk driving in teens?

 

Yes, yes, and yes though I don't see how it would reduce drunk driving.

[BlsdMama]

I'd be heartbroken. But, absolutely. We'd expect to fully support our DAUGHTERS. That said, we'd expect our sons to get their tailfeathers out and get jobs. :P How's that for unfair?

 

We don't believe in birth control either so I think I'd be MORE upset about finding out my daughter is on the pill than if she got pregnant and I'm actually not kidding about that one.

 

My DH and I had Ana two months before our wedding. How hypocritical would it be to not forgive her or him? Would I consider it a mistake (the act, not the result?) Yes. But I'll be honest, two teens very attracted to one another, left alone for quantities of time, left unsupervised? It's a miracle we don't have THOUSANDS more unplanned babies than we do.

 

Hypothetically speaking we don't believe in dating or allowing one on one relationships whatsoever though so I find it difficult to believe this could happen. But, again, that's pretty rose colored isn't it?

 

But I am always surprised when adults expect more self control out of teens than they'd be capable of themselves. If I were alone, unsupervised with MY husband, for hours, and the kids were gone? Goodness. I'd lack self control too. :P And yet grown adults who understand this encourage young people to constantly date and spend time alone with one another. Wow. Talk about setting up the situation for the result.

Edited July 17, 2009 by BlsdMama

[Peek a Boo]

The thing is, a fetus is not a human. A human has rights, and as such cannot be killed. A fetus has no such rights, and even if it did, the mother would retain the right to her womb and as such could remove the fetus from it.

 

I believe in everyone have rights and freedoms as long as they don't infringe on other's rights or freedoms.

 

Blacks weren't considered humans with rights either.

A fetus is scientifically, undeniably a human.

What KIND of fetus is it? a HUMAN fetus.

Not just human tissue, but an individual, developing human.

That our "civil" society hasn't figured out what science has known for quite some time is as bad as those still practicing racism today.

 

and yes, i [mostly] agree with and addressed the last part of your post in a thread about ectogenesis:

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53976

[10Newtons]

I would help as long a mom was making responsible choices...finishing school, working, etc.

[st_claire]

Blacks weren't considered humans with rights either.

A fetus is scientifically, undeniably a human.

What KIND of fetus is it? a HUMAN fetus.

Not just human tissue, but an individual, developing human.

That our "civil" society hasn't figured out what science has known for quite some time is as bad as those still practicing racism today.

 

and yes, i [mostly] agree with and addressed the last part of your post in a thread about ectogenesis:

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53976

 

Ok, I'll give you that a fetus is genetically human, but it is certainly not a person. And as I said, even if you were to consider it a person, the rights of the womb belong to the woman not the fetus. I checked out your post and it seems we agree on this point. And yes, I think that requiring the minimziation of risks for the fetus is a sound law, but as you said in your post, if done early now the fetus has no chance to survive.

 

You keep trying to equate abortion with other things: infanticide, racism, etc... Why don't we stick to abortion for now and you can open another thread of the other ones?

Edited July 17, 2009 by st_claire

[mommaduck]

Ok, I'll give you that a fetus is genetically human, but it is certainly not a person. And as I said, even if you were to consider it a person, the rights of the womb belong to the woman not the fetus. I checked out your post and it seems we agree on this point. And yes, I think that requiring the minimziation of risks for the fetus is a sound law, but as you said in your post, if done early now the fetus has no chance to survive.

 

You keep trying to equate abortion with other things: infanticide, racism, etc... Why don't we stick to abortion for now and you can open another thread of the other ones?

 

 

And other cultures believed a child wasn't a "person" until 3 days after birth...therefore infanticide was acceptable. It was still the killing of a person, regardless of those cultures' definition. Ditto here...regardless of YOUR definition of "person", it's still the killing of a person.

[lionfamily1999]

And other cultures believed a child wasn't a "person" until 3 days after birth...therefore infanticide was acceptable. It was still the killing of a person, regardless of those cultures' definition. Ditto here...regardless of YOUR definition of "person", it's still the killing of a person.

:iagree:

[Lovedtodeath]

I'd be heartbroken. But, absolutely. We'd expect to fully support our DAUGHTERS. That said, we'd expect our sons to get their tailfeathers out and get jobs. :P How's that for unfair?

 

We don't believe in birth control either so I think I'd be MORE upset about finding out my daughter is on the pill than if she got pregnant and I'm actually not kidding about that one.

 

My DH and I had Ana two months before our wedding. How hypocritical would it be to not forgive her or him? Would I consider it a mistake (the act, not the result?) Yes. But I'll be honest, two teens very attracted to one another, left alone for quantities of time, left unsupervised? It's a miracle we don't have THOUSANDS more unplanned babies than we do.

 

Hypothetically speaking we don't believe in dating or allowing one on one relationships whatsoever though so I find it difficult to believe this could happen. But, again, that's pretty rose colored isn't it?

 

But I am always surprised when adults expect more self control out of teens than they'd be capable of themselves. If I were alone, unsupervised with MY husband, for hours, and the kids were gone? Goodness. I'd lack self control too. :P And yet grown adults who understand this encourage young people to constantly date and spend time alone with one another. Wow. Talk about setting up the situation for the result.

ITA!:iagree:

[theresatwist]

agreed.

I'm not anti-abortion because I want to see the number of abortions reduced [separate issue]: I'm anti-abortion cuz I believe that ALL humans have a right to life, and that NOBODY has a right to kill another human for convenience.

 

 

 

 

Me too. The two are not mutually exclusive. However, as with the slavery/ racism/ bigotry issues [learning from history], legally stating the obvious moral truth helps steer the process down the proper course.

most anti-abortion people do a pretty good job of putting their money and actions where their mouth is. But like the other thread, that help isn't unnoticed: it is absolutely turned down cold.

 

However, I'm pretty sure that what you consider appropriate ways to help and what i consider appropriate ways to help are going to be vastly different based on how we view the gvt's role and budgeting.

 

 

Not necessarily.

unless "you" is considered a general term in which case yes, there are abortionists who are looking at the $ angle.

--you [as you just described yourself] are characterized as someone who is willing to fight to let unborn babies be killed, because that is exactly what you ARE doing. unless you are NOT involved in campaigning or voting for "reproductive rights" issues.......?? in which case, you'd be characterized as someone who sat by and watched others make sure it was legal to kill developing humans for convenience.

characterizations aren't always palatable.

 

What do you choose if you're pro choice?

What are the choices?

death, and life.

One human chooses to kill another.

That's the choice you are defending.

You are defending the right to take an innocent life w/o consequence or due process.

You are defending the right to kill.

You are defending the right to choose death.

 

The right to choose life is not what's under attack.

 

I'm not anti-choice: there are plenty of choices in how to deal w/ a living human being.

 

I am anti-death.

 

I do understand that sometimes "the choice" to become pregnant was taken away. i still think that's a tough sentence: to execute another human because someone's choice was taken away. Two wrongs and all that.

 

[copied from http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14759]

 

I do think there is such a thing as reproductive rights. In my view, victims of rape or incest should absolutely have the legal right to have an abortion. I do think there should be limits on when that abortion can take place. Do I think allowing them to do that is murder? Yes. I still believe it should be legal. HOWEVER, I believe that there are steps the government, private organizations, and NGOs can take so that we can seriously reduce rape and incest rates in this country.

 

On the reproductive rights issue, what I believe as far as abortion and what the law should say is concerned is not well represented by any one group. I don't agree with everything Planned Parenthood or Naral has to say on the issue and I don't agree with their counterparts on the right either. So no, I'm not working for them or donating money. However, I would also never vote for someone who wanted to make abortion in all cases illegal. You see this as standing by as innocent people are killed. I don't believe I'm standing by. From what I know about your views from other discussions we've had I bet I am willing to put far more tax money towards what I believe can be effective ways to combat unplanned pregnancies, rape, and incest through non-legislative routes than you would be. Unlike you, I obviously do not want to see legislation outlawing abortion in all instances.

 

I don't understand why you have "the choice" to become pregnant in quotations in your final paragraph. Rape victims are just that, victims. I don't know how you would argue that they had any choice in the matter.

[cathmom]

Several of you said you would expect the mom to be in school and/or working. I'm just wondering how the mom is also supposed to be taking care of the baby. The baby only has one babyhood - I'd want the mom to be mothering. I certainly could see continuing school part-time or at night however.

[Lovedtodeath]

Several of you said you would expect the mom to be in school and/or working. I'm just wondering how the mom is also supposed to be taking care of the baby. The baby only has one babyhood - I'd want the mom to be mothering. I certainly could see continuing school part-time or at night however.

:iagree:

[Peek a Boo]

we're getting closer.... ;)

 

Ok, I'll give you that a fetus is genetically human, but it is certainly not a person.

 

as someone already pointed out, "person" is a legal term, and our laws have a history of using legal terms to commit horrific human rights violations.

Science has done a pretty good, unbiased job establishing basic facts, including what is needed to have a unique, developing, individual human. It would seem prudent to recognize what science has empirically known for decades and adjust our laws accordingly. It is only "certainly" not a person because our legislators choose to keep our laws in the dark ages.

 

And as I said, even if you were to consider it a person, the rights of the womb belong to the woman not the fetus.

There's a basic concept known as proportional use of force: even though my arm is still my arm, I would be exercising an disproportional use of force if i killed someone who happened to bump into me and grabbed on for support. If they fell on top of me and passed out unconscious, and i was trapped underneath them but my life was not in danger, i would be exercising an disproportional use of force if I started chopping their limbs off to remove them from me bit by bit. there are any number of scenarios [currently in our laws- not a new concept by any means] where just because something is ours does not mean we automatically have a right to KILL [however we want, whenever we want, with no due process whatsoever] someone to remove them from whatever it is we have a right to.

I checked out your post and it seems we agree on this point. And yes, I think that requiring the minimziation of risks for the fetus is a sound law, but as you said in your post, if done early now the fetus has no chance to survive.

They have no chance to survive now w/ the abortion laws in place. At least by recognizing their personhood and restricting how they might die [as we already have w/ death penalty laws] we have room for research to move full speed ahead towards a specific, positive goal that protects citizens as well as criminalizing the illegal [no due process] intentional destruction [no effort to save life of fetal human] of human life for convenience [disproportional use of force].

 

You keep trying to equate abortion with other things: infanticide, racism, etc... Why don't we stick to abortion for now and you can open another thread of the other ones?

 

I'm equating abortion w/ other recognized human rights issues because it is a human being aborted.

abortion and fetus are vague terms that can apply to any species.

We aren't discussing aborting puppies.

We aren't discussing fetal mice.

We are discussing the life of a human.

 

The issue of abortion is all ABOUT human rights: the right to life of the human that another intends to kill, and the property rights of the woman involved. It seems prudent to study history and learn from it so we can explore all the options and make civilized decisions that are not founded on subjective terms that have proven to be wrong time after time after time. As such, laws that have allowed racism/slavery/legal personhood and infanticide become explicitly relevant.

[Peek a Boo]

I do think there is such a thing as reproductive rights. In my view, victims of rape or incest should absolutely have the legal right to have an abortion.

i don't believe being a victim of a crime gives one a right to kill another human.

 

I do think there should be limits on when that abortion can take place. Do I think allowing them to do that is murder? Yes. I still believe it should be legal.

This is one reason we will never agree.

 

However, I would also never vote for someone who wanted to make abortion in all cases illegal. You see this as standing by as innocent people are killed. I don't believe I'm standing by.

per my previous posts, I agree with your statement here.

 

What I see as "standing by" is letting unborn humans be killed for convenience. Most anti-abortion legislation that has been introduced has included a clause allowing abortion for rape, incest, or life of the mother. So your "standing by" would be dependent on where you WOULD be willing to outlaw abortion. If I supported infanticide for infants one day old across the board, I'd be supporting murder. If i supported killing the unborn human in utero one day before it's born for convenience, that's supporting "reproductive rights."

Are you willing to make ANY abortion illegal?

 

 

From what I know about your views from other discussions we've had I bet I am willing to put far more tax money towards what I believe can be effective ways to combat unplanned pregnancies, rape, and incest through non-legislative routes than you would be.

Unlike you, I obviously do not want to see legislation outlawing abortion in all instances.

 

fyi-Your last sentence is false. ;)

And yes, you would be willing to put far more of other people's money towards causes they deem morally repugnant than i would. Statistics show that the conservative/religious right has given more of their own money towards non-legislative causes they deem morally acceptable than the usual liberal left has.

I support 100% your right to use your own money --or pool together w/ others of like-mindedness -- to support people in ways you want as long as you aren't killing other humans or convenience.

I do not support you taking my money and using it to support or establish practices that many do not agree with in principle.

I don't understand why you have "the choice" to become pregnant in quotations in your final paragraph. Rape victims are just that, victims. I don't know how you would argue that they had any choice in the matter.

 

I'm not.

I'll clarify:

i specifically put it in quotes because so many pro-lifers toss around the "they already made their choice ---to engage in activities that cause pregnancy." Putting "the choice" in quotes was a direct reference to that full quote.

While I agree that over 95% of abortions [conservative estimate] are for convenience from a mutually consensual relationship, the existence of that small percentage that are victims of violence excludes that tagline from me ever using it unless I know from testimony that there was no violence involved in the conception.

 

eta:

another clarification-- per the ectogenesis thread, I should clarify my use of abortion: I do believe that abortions [intentional removal of the embryo/fetus from the uterus] that deliberately kill the embryo/fetus should be illegal. I am open to allowing abortions that simply remove the embryo/fetus intact with the intent to take life saving measures to be a legal via due process abortion. In Amy's world, there would be legal abortions and illegal abortions, and the difference would be motive/intent/protection of the right to life of the unborn legal person.

Edited July 18, 2009 by Peek a Boo
"another clarification"

[Peek a Boo]

Several of you said you would expect the mom to be in school and/or working. I'm just wondering how the mom is also supposed to be taking care of the baby. The baby only has one babyhood - I'd want the mom to be mothering. I certainly could see continuing school part-time or at night however.

 

:iagree:

 

One can certainly learn at home via homeschooling and raise a baby. :)

[Ester Maria]

Morally, I'd approve (even welcome) an abortion in cases of rape, child and young teenage pregnancy, extreme poverty which would imply the impossibility to raise and educate a child and which would inevitably lead to certain side-effects (child labor and alike), mother's life and health being threatened, serious medical complications with the fetus'.

 

So, no, I wouldn't morally approve an abortion purely "out of convenience", in case where you have two adult people engaging in an activity the potential consequences of which they're aware of, with no protection, both financially stable, healthy and able to raise a child, no medical complications included, and who yet decide the baby would be threatening their comfort zone, so she goes to abort out of that sole reason. I'd consider such a behavior irresponsible and couldn't say "yes, I think she made a right decision". Children are not toys, not even potential children, to throw them away as we please, for no reason other than our own comfort.

 

Yet, I think that even in that hypothetical situation, a woman should have a legal option to abort till certain stage of pregnancy. Do I agree with her choice? Absolutely not. But I think she should have an option to do it, legally and in a medically acceptable environment, nonetheless. In fact, I don't think we should outlaw things for my own comfort or that I have a right to dictate to other people what to do with their bodies for my mental peace.

 

The beginning stages of pregnancy are comparable to having a parasite inside of your body, and there is a huge debate at which point the thing becomes alive in full sense of the word. As a matter of fact, the whole of pregnancy is, medically speaking, a pathological state for the body. And I'm of opinion your body - your choice, as long as you abort within certain time span (not in late pregnancy).

 

I do think abortion is bad, but I also recognize that in some cases it's the least of all the possible evils. I don't think in black-white paradigms, I don't think that one should stick to moral "absolutes" and disregard the circumstances.

 

As a matter of fact, I think that bringing the baby into the world of extreme poverty, or by young parents who can't handle it and who are only going to burden other people by their choice, or an unwanted baby who will constantly remind you to the worst thing in your life... is equally irresponsible, if not more, than preventing it to be born in the first place. Giving birth to a child you won't be able to maintain, educate, give proper childhood to, take care of medically if it has defects (and burden other people, if you can't) is in my opinion wrong, for the sole sake of staying within your comfort zone mentally, and I think it's selfish, equally as the aforementioned situation in which I think aborting is wrong.

 

That being said, I don't think abortion is "good" and there are many cases in which I don't even morally approve it, but I think it should always be an option. I also don't think it's a murder, if done right away. It's simply, to put it in brutally honest terms, getting rid of an unwanted parasite inside of your body which doesn't live for itself yet. I'm more concerned with medical implications for the mother than with the ethical ones.

 

I also don't think it's killing a child. It's killing a possibility of a child. You don't know what you're killing. You may be killing one Beethoven, but you may be also killing one Hitler. You can't know, you're killing a possibility of both. Universally speaking, there are probably also many "good" abortions, of would-have-been's bad people. Many of you have in their minds sweet little children, but those children bear certain genes (especially those who are a product of a rape) and not all of them will be good and moral, even if you raise them as such, and many of them will develop pathological traits of character and will hurt other people.

The bottomline is, you never know, since you're killing a possibility. I think it's wrong to kill a possibility if that possibility lives for itself, which fetus in early stages of pregnancy doesn't. I also don't think it's wrong to kill a future certainity (notice that I said future, not present!) and to abort if you know that child will be ill or will have a miserable life in general.

 

Basically, I don't think it's a murder. I don't think it's a good thing, but definitely not a murder in my eyes.

Edited July 18, 2009 by Ester Maria

[Sara R]

As a matter of fact, I think that bringing the baby into the world of extreme poverty, or by young parents who can't handle it and who are only going to burden other people by their choice, or an unwanted baby who will constantly remind you to the worst thing in your life... is equally irresponsible, if not more, than preventing it to be born in the first place. Giving birth to a child you won't be able to maintain, educate, give proper childhood to, take care of medically if it has defects (and burden other people, if you can't) is in my opinion wrong, for the sole sake of staying within your comfort zone mentally, and I think it's selfish, equally as the aforementioned situation in which I think aborting is wrong.

 

Abortion and keeping the baby are not the only two choices. In the above circumstance, do you have a problem with adopting the newborn?

[TammyinTN]

Since we're talking about unplanned pregnancies, I was just wondering if your teenage got pregnant or got his girlfriend pregnant would you help (financially, but in other ways too) to support the baby?

 

I obviously hope that I am never in the situation, but if I were I absolutely would. It is very hard for teens to raise a child by themselves, especially if they stay in school. I believe staying in school is always the preferable route if folks are fortunate enough to have that choice.

 

 

About a year ago this happened to my 19 year old daughter. I will never regret doing all I did for her. I went to all her appointment, held her hand when she was sick and provided everything her Dad and I could for her. She lost the baby at 16 weeks and has completely turned her life around by being much more responsibile. I just want to say...you never know what might happen, but the way I see it, is your child is your child for life. Not just when things are going great. We were disappointed in her choices, but we love her so much that we would see her through anything. She is now working full time with babies and toddlers and has a wonderful life. She never doubts how much her parent truly love her.

[Retired]

About a year ago this happened to my 19 year old daughter. I will never regret doing all I did for her. I went to all her appointment, held her hand when she was sick and provided everything her Dad and I could for her. She lost the baby at 16 weeks and has completely turned her life around by being much more responsible. I just want to say...you never know what might happen, but the way I see it, is your child is your child for life. Not just when things are going great. We were disappointed in her choices, but we love her so much that we would see her through anything. She is now working full time with babies and toddlers and has a wonderful life. She never doubts how much her parent truly love her.

 

 

Tammy I don't have girls but this would be my approach.

 

I pray my boys are responsible but if there is a pregnancy, I would try my best to "mother" the young lady. I don't see babies as burdens.

 

My mom ran away from abusive home, lived at the YWCA, got pregnancy with me. She had no family, no home. She met my dad who was equally messed up after 2 tours in Vietnam.

 

My paternal grandmother never judged just brought me, my mom, and my dad into her home. She helped my parents learn to be parents. She is the reason that I had two reasponsible parents. She was a Christian witness to my parents.

 

I can only imagine what hell my life could of been without her supporting my parents.

[lionfamily1999]

Several of you said you would expect the mom to be in school and/or working. I'm just wondering how the mom is also supposed to be taking care of the baby. The baby only has one babyhood - I'd want the mom to be mothering. I certainly could see continuing school part-time or at night however.

 

:iagree:

 

One can certainly learn at home via homeschooling and raise a baby. :)

I agree with Peek about a good alternative. Also, lots of CCs have FLO classes, that would make it possible to go for the first few years, while only needing to attend for tests. Once they reach that point, Gramma could start homeschooling little one while Mom/Dad worked on their degree (ducking).

[HRAAB]

About a year ago this happened to my 19 year old daughter. I will never regret doing all I did for her. I went to all her appointment, held her hand when she was sick and provided everything her Dad and I could for her. She lost the baby at 16 weeks and has completely turned her life around by being much more responsibile. I just want to say...you never know what might happen, but the way I see it, is your child is your child for life. Not just when things are going great. We were disappointed in her choices, but we love her so much that we would see her through anything. She is now working full time with babies and toddlers and has a wonderful life. She never doubts how much her parent truly love her.

 

Your daughter is truly blessed to have you for a mother.

 

Janet

[theresatwist]

:iagree:

 

One can certainly learn at home via homeschooling and raise a baby. :)

 

Peekaboo, I partially agree with you. Yes, you could homeschool and take care of a child. But that means that at least one of the two grandparents and at least one of the two parents are not able to work full time. (And if only one parent is involved this obviously becomes a bigger deal.) Perhaps some part time work could be done? It would just require a level of financial stability/support and parental support that many teens simply don't have.

[Peek a Boo]

So, no, I wouldn't morally approve an abortion purely "out of convenience", in case where you have two adult people engaging in an activity the potential consequences of which they're aware of, with no protection, both financially stable, healthy and able to raise a child, no medical complications included, and who yet decide the baby would be threatening their comfort zone, so she goes to abort out of that sole reason. I'd consider such a behavior irresponsible and couldn't say "yes, I think she made a right decision". Children are not toys, not even potential children, to throw them away as we please, for no reason other than our own comfort.

 

and "comfort" is quite subjective, even when we're talking about "financially stable."

But ok -- we have established that you believe it is right to kill a human for economic reasons.

Yet, I think that even in that hypothetical situation, a woman should have a legal option to abort till certain stage of pregnancy. ... In fact, I don't think we should outlaw things for my own comfort or that I have a right to dictate to other people what to do with their bodies for my mental peace.

I'm not talking about anybody's mental peace --I'm talking about basic human rights for a human.

The beginning stages of pregnancy are comparable to having a parasite inside of your body, and there is a huge debate at which point the thing becomes alive in full sense of the word. As a matter of fact, the whole of pregnancy is, medically speaking, a pathological state for the body. And I'm of opinion your body - your choice, as long as you abort within certain time span (not in late pregnancy).

There is NO debate in the scientific community as to whether the single cell diploid human is alive or human. That is empirically observable. there is much debate in the philosophical community tho.

 

The only problem with "your body-- your choice" is that it includes a second, separate, human body that is not yours.

I do think abortion is bad, but I also recognize that in some cases it's the least of all the possible evils. I don't think in black-white paradigms, I don't think that one should stick to moral "absolutes" and disregard the circumstances.

 

As a matter of fact, I think that bringing the baby into the world of extreme poverty, or by young parents who can't handle it and who are only going to burden other people by their choice, or an unwanted baby who will constantly remind you to the worst thing in your life... is equally irresponsible, if not more, than preventing it to be born in the first place. Giving birth to a child you won't be able to maintain, educate, give proper childhood to, take care of medically if it has defects (and burden other people, if you can't) is in my opinion wrong, for the sole sake of staying within your comfort zone mentally, and I think it's selfish, equally as the aforementioned situation in which I think aborting is wrong.

aside from the statement above that I'm not talking about anybody's mental peace --I'm talking about basic human rights for a human.

I don't believe one's basic rights can be bought or are determined by another person's ability. this type of argument is fully able to support infanticide and other "currently seen as immoral" issues also.

I also don't think it's a murder, if done right away. It's simply, to put it in brutally honest terms, getting rid of an unwanted parasite inside of your body which doesn't live for itself yet. I'm more concerned with medical implications for the mother than with the ethical ones.

 

why "right away"?? if the mother's/couple's financial situation changes immediately after the baby is born, why should they not be allowed to kill it??

 

That human is living for itself -- just ask any person that has experienced a miscarriage: if that baby dies, there is no way to KEEP it from dying, because its systems are separate --tho physically dependent on-- the mother.

but based on your definition, a baby outside the womb doesn't "live for itself" either --it relies on constant care from someone else or it will die. There's a reason we call them human rights and not "outside the womb" rights. If you read the ectogenesis thread, we are getting closer to creating a physical place for an embryonic/fetal human to grow outside a human body, in an artificial womb. I don't think Human Rights should be based on technological advances or limitations.

"parasitic" only determines geography, just like "born" does. I don't believe rights should be based on geography but our country has already practiced that w/ slavery, so i guess some people think that sort of reasoning is ok.

I also don't think it's killing a child. It's killing a possibility of a child. You don't know what you're killing. You may be killing one Beethoven, but you may be also killing one Hitler.

It is killing a young human.

You don't want to call it a child for [what appears to be] sentimental or emotional reasons, but I'm not interested in keeping a procedure that kills humans legal just for your own mental peace about whether it is or is not a "child."

No, it's not a "possible" human --it is an actual human.

A complete human in the early stages of development.

Even criminals are guaranteed basic human rights, even after they are found guilty. But that sounds like a great argument for eugenics.

 

The bottomline is, you never know, since you're killing a possibility. I think it's wrong to kill a possibility if that possibility lives for itself, which fetus in early stages of pregnancy doesn't. I also don't think it's wrong to kill a future certainity (notice that I said future, not present!) and to abort if you know that child will be ill or will have a miserable life in general.

 

We always know that we are absolutely, with 100% certainty, killing a living human.

You're not killing a possiblility: that is impossible. :)

 

 

Basically, I don't think it's a murder. I don't think it's a good thing, but definitely not a murder in my eyes.

This is why individuals -- self included-- don't get to decide what is and is not murder. Killing a black slave for convenience was once upon a time not considered murder either.

We've come a long way since those horrific days, but some are still clinging to defining "human rights" according to our own comfort level of what types of humans are ok to kill.

Edited July 19, 2009 by Peek a Boo

[Peek a Boo]

Peekaboo, I partially agree with you. Yes, you could homeschool and take care of a child. But that means that at least one of the two grandparents and at least one of the two parents are not able to work full time. (And if only one parent is involved this obviously becomes a bigger deal.) Perhaps some part time work could be done? It would just require a level of financial stability/support and parental support that many teens simply don't have.

 

well sure.

There are plenty of parents that work part time, homeschool, and raise an infant.

but the "proper" level of financial/emotional support and assertion of "many teens" is pretty subjective.

[Ester Maria]

But ok -- we have established that you believe it is right to kill a human for economic reasons.

A potential human who is at the present point a bunk of cells parasting inside of you, and who'd have a miserable life if you were to borne him into an extreme poverty - absolutely.

 

I'm not talking about anybody's mental peace --I'm talking about basic human rights for a human.

Basic human rights also include the freedom of choice regarding your body. As long as it's inside of you, and especially while it's not formed yet but is only a bunk of cells, it's as any other parasite.

It does live - but dependently on you. Nice if you let him live on you for 9 months, but you don't have to. That's my point - not that abortion is "good", but that nobody should be able to legally force you to allow anyone or potential anyone to parasite on you for 9 months.

 

By the way - ever read Judith Jarvis Thomson's A Defense of Abortion? It's short and available online, basically I agree with it on most points.

 

There is NO debate in the scientific community as to whether the single cell diploid human is alive or human. That is empirically observable. there is much debate in the philosophical community tho.

The problem is not in them being ALIVE.

The problem is in them being alive PARASITING ON YOU. The only reason why they're alive is because you're alive too - which is not the case of a young child, which may be dependent upon you in some other ways, but not in the fundamental way as being a parasite on your body.

 

Sure, you can help them become a full independent life for themselves - but you don't have to. And that's my point - nobody can oblige you to do that.

 

The only problem with "your body-- your choice" is that it includes a second, separate, human body that is not yours.

EXACTLY.

But it sure well parasites on you. See the answer above.

 

why "right away"?? if the mother's/couple's financial situation changes immediately after the baby is born, why should they not be allowed to kill it??

Because it's killing a certain independent individual life, not a possible one parasiting inside of you. A very different situation.

 

That human is living for itself -- just ask any person that has experienced a miscarriage: if that baby dies, there is no way to KEEP it from dying, because its systems are separate --tho physically dependent on-- the mother.

That's the problem.

 

There's a reason we call them human rights and not "outside the womb" rights.

Language is arbitrary, how we "mark" things doesn't matter, essentially, you're making a logical mistake by connecting two things which may not be necessarily related one to another due to the language we use.

 

"parasitic" only determines geography, just like "born" does. I don't believe rights should be based on geography but our country has already practiced that w/ slavery, so i guess some people think that sort of reasoning is ok.

You're comparing two incomparable things.

(Slavery, by the way, is Biblically allowed, for all of you who use religion as an argument against abortion.)

 

It's not geography - it's a fundamental condition that can't be avoided by any means (while slavery can by restructuring the society). A life necessarily begins in a parasiting way; there is no necessity involved in slavery. Slavery is not a "natural" state of things, it's socially imposed.

 

It is killing a young human.

You don't want to call it a child for [what appears to be] sentimental or emotional reasons, but I'm not interested in keeping a procedure that kills humans legal just for your own mental peace about whether it is or is not a "child."

Don't go into ad hominems, or read into when there's nothing to read into in the first place.

It's killing a bunch of cells which would most likely be going to become a human had you not done that. But when you did that, it was a bunch of parasiting cells which were starting to form a fetus.

It's not a child, it's human cells with a potential to become a child.

 

No, it's not a "possible" human --it is an actual human.

A complete human in the early stages of development. .

If something is in the early stages of development, it's not "complete" yet. It's complete when it can live independetnly, not parasiting on another body. And that's basically a little before it's born, definitely not in the first few months.

 

We've come a long way since those horrific days, but some are still clinging to defining "human rights" according to our own comfort level of what types of humans are ok to kill.

Again, I consider a fetus only potentially a child and a person.

I don't approve aborting it morally in all cases, but in some I do. Legally, I think the option should always exist because the law shouldn't interfere with what you can do to your own body.

 

Or should we be tolerant of cancer also because it's a poor living cells which just want to spread?

Edited July 19, 2009 by Ester Maria