If a woman is this...

[OneFollowingHim]

[dictionary definition]Pregnant: having a child or other offspring developing in the body; with child or young, as a woman or female mammal.

Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=pregnant).[/dictionary definition]

Having a child? Offspring developing in the body? With child? If abortion ends a pregnancy, then it means a dead child. So when a woman chooses to abort, it always results in a dead baby. It would appear to me that women who abort either:

are scared
don't know
don't care to have the responsibility of a child
just want the sex without consequencesWhat do women really get out of abortion? Seems to me that ultimately there is exploiting going on. In all cases, mom is going against her basic instincts.

A woman is the nurturer. That is her role. Her body is the one that helps people get through the initial stages of life. If she's scared, she needs someone to point that out. If she doesn't know, she needs someone to tell her the facts. And if she knowingly and willingly falls into category 3 or 4, she is a extremely self-centered (or worse). It seems to me that in all cases above, a woman who aborts has given up her real power. As the one with the natural role of helping to keep the youngest among us remain alive, what does a woman really get out of abortion?

[burgy]

[dictionary definition]Pregnant: having a child or other offspring developing in the body; with child or young, as a woman or female mammal.

Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=pregnant).[/dictionary definition]

Having a child? Offspring developing in the body? With child? If abortion ends a pregnancy, then it means a dead child. So when a woman chooses to abort, it always results in a dead baby. It would appear to me that women who abort either:

are scared
don't know
don't care to have the responsibility of a child
just want the sex without consequencesWhat do women really get out of abortion? Seems to me that ultimately there is exploiting going on. In all cases, mom is going against her basic instincts.

A woman is the nurturer. That is her role. Her body is the one that helps people get through the initial stages of life. If she's scared, she needs someone to point that out. If she doesn't know, she needs someone to tell her the facts. And if she knowingly and willingly falls into category 3 or 4, she is a extremely self-centered (or worse). It seems to me that in all cases above, a woman who aborts has given up her real power. As the one with the natural role of helping to keep the youngest among us remain alive, what does a woman really get out of abortion?

One problem with discussing this question is that there are many different abortion possibilities.

One is abortion before implantation. The argument here is that there is no way of soul infusion before that time, therefore there is no "person" to be killed.

Another is cases of rape. Consider the 12 year old who is impregnated by her father. Is abortion justified in this case? (I'll not even get into the parental notification issue on this one).

A third is late term abortion where there is a severely deformed fetus, perhaps with no brain development.

[themuzicman]

One problem with discussing this question is that there are many different abortion possibilities.

One is abortion before implantation. The argument here is that there is no way of soul infusion before that time, therefore there is no "person" to be killed.

How do you know that there is no soul infusion?

Another is cases of rape. Consider the 12 year old who is impregnated by her father. Is abortion justified in this case? (I'll not even get into the parental notification issue on this one).

Why would killing a 3rd party be justified when one person victimizes another?

A third is late term abortion where there is a severely deformed fetus, perhaps with no brain development.

If the fetus is dead, then it's not killing. No problem.

Muz

[anthrogirl]

[dictionary definition] As the one with the natural role of helping to keep the youngest among us remain alive, what does a woman really get out of abortion?


Freedom...?

ag

[SlapShot]

5. None of your business

[dizzle]

Freedom...?

ag

You mean like a woman who murders an inconvenient husband?

Yeah, you're right. Our freedom is always paramount. Damned be the life of another.

[dizzle]

5. None of your business

Do you feel the same about child abusers?

[anthrogirl]

You mean like a woman who murders an inconvenient husband?

Yeah, you're right. Our freedom is always paramount. Damned be the life of another.

I was answering a question posed by OFH. And a woman does inherit a measure of freedom from an abortion--I think that's why alot of women have them--they don't want to give up their freedom in order to raise a child.

I personally think abortion a poor substitute for birth control. And if a woman really values her freedom, she should take serious precautions to avoid pregnancy in the first place.

ag

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Killing an unwanted husband also gives the killer a measure of freedom. Heck, the right to rape gives the rapist freedom too.

I think that to stop husband killings and rapists, we should not burden husband killers and rapists with the judgmental claim that they are in the wrong. We should meet them where they are at, with education and support so that they don't need to kill husbands or rape women.

[Teallaura]

Freedom...?

ag
Freedom at the cost of the life of one's own child isn't freedom - it's pathetic and selfish beyond compare. No, not freedom because she has to look at herself in the mirror everyday and there's no way to lie to yourself forever. Denial can only last so long. Eventually, what looks back from the mirror is just how low you are and how shallow and worthless a human being you've made of yourself. That's not freedom; it's self-imprisonment.

A woman who gives up her child for adoption can look herself in the mirror knowing that she did what was best for her child despite its costs to her. A woman who aborts ultimately knows she benefitted herself with the child paying the tab - the ultimate selfish act.

[anthrogirl]

did you guys even read my post?
sure doesn't seem like it.

...love the spin job, though.

ag

[SlapShot]

Do you feel the same way about the new two line pass rule? Any more non sequitur questions?

What do women really get out of abortion? Unpregnant.

[OneFollowingHim]

Freedom...?

ag

Freedom from what? Responsibility?

[OneFollowingHim]

Do you feel the same way about the new two line pass rule? Any more non sequitur questions?

Unpregnant.

But what are the consequences? A dead baby and a wounded family.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Do you feel the same way about the new two line pass rule? Any more non sequitur questions?

Unpregnant.Say, that reminds me of what a woman really gets out of husband killing. Unmarried.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

did you guys even read my post?
sure doesn't seem like it.

...love the spin job, though.

ag
Nice brush off.

[Teallaura]

did you guys even read my post?
sure doesn't seem like it.

...love the spin job, though.

ag
Which one? The post or the caveat?

You made a rather snide sounding comment (whether you meant it to sound snide is debatable given the caveat) what did you expect would happen? Seriously, you do this all the time. You come in, give a pat answer which is recognizable as being from a certain POV then get all huffy when it's refuted on the basis of what it is claiming that we didn't understand or took it wrong or whatever. Once or twice could happen to anyone - but this is a very consistent pattern with you. If you know it's gonna be jumped on without caveat then caveat it beforehand, not three posts later. And don't pretend you didn't know what would happen - you're too smart for that. Abortion is a hot button issue so if you don't wanna get doused with a fire extinguisher make sure people know you aren't trying to start a fire.

[dizzle]

Yeah, I tend to spin things to point out that murder for convenience and freedom isn't kosher. A bad habit of mine.

But AG, is it true that in some sense, women get freedom when they abort? Sure. As do women who want to off their husbands. That is without question.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Not for convenience. For FREEEEEEDDOOOOOOOM! All the difference.

EDIT: Oh... I see you've added freedom. :tongue: Just as well. Freedom makes everything alright.

[anthrogirl]

Which one? The post or the caveat?

You made a rather snide sounding comment (whether you meant it to sound snide is debatable given the caveat) what did you expect would happen?

snide comment? Are you refering to this one:


Freedom...?
I don't think it's snide. I think that alot of women choose to abort because, for whatever reason, they believe that they will lose freedoms if they have a child. And they will! Motherhood is, for most women, an all-consuming event. Motherhood also unlocks huge potentials and new kinds of freedoms. I don't think that any of us would disagree with that (indeed, that's one reason why we are here--to express the importance of motherhood! :smile: ).

Our perceptions of the morality of the decision to abort is not relavant to the question OFH asked:

As the one with the natural role of helping to keep the youngest among us remain alive, what does a woman really get out of abortion?

Whether it's right or wrong, women who abort have "re-gained" a measure of freedom from a huge responsibility. It's a way, for better or worse, to "turn back the clock". But having an abortion is not without consequence (aside from the loss of life or "potential" life). Every single woman I know who has had an abortion, regardless of how long ago it occured, still feels emotional pain.

Of course, they don't tell you about that part in the clinic. In the clinic, the woman's experience is sort of medicalized away. Suddenly, it's not an "abortion", it's a"termination". The language changes and the social experience of pregnancy becomes a medical one. It's inconsistant because the problem of abortion is first a social issue. The majority of women who seek out an abortion do it for a social reason (e.g., not enough money, don't want the responsibility/aren't ready for motherhood, "wrong time in life"--you know, the usual problems that come with unplanned pregnancy :wink: ). Indeed, the medicalization of pregnancy and abortion is near the heart of the issue when it comes to pro-life/pro-choice conflict.

Perhaps a better way for society to deal with the problem of abortion is by addressing the social factors that seem to influence the rates of abortion (like poverty, birth control, abstinence, interpersonal violence, drug abuse and others) rather than subverting these critical links in favor of simplifying and medicalizing these problems away. Call me a hippie, but if we could include more social support within the framework of American capitalism, not only would we see a reduction in abortion rates, but also an increase in other indicators of social health...(but that's a rant for another thread :wink:).

ag



Seriously, you do this all the time. You come in, give a pat answer which is recognizable as being from a certain POV then get all huffy when it's refuted on the basis of what it is claiming that we didn't understand or took it wrong or whatever. Once or twice could happen to anyone - but this is a very consistent pattern with you. If you know it's gonna be jumped on without caveat then caveat it beforehand, not three posts later. And don't pretend you didn't know what would happen - you're too smart for that. Abortion is a hot button issue so if you don't wanna get doused with a fire extinguisher make sure people know you aren't trying to start a fire.

[anthrogirl]

Yeah, I tend to spin things to point out that murder for convenience and freedom isn't kosher. A bad habit of mine.

But AG, is it true that in some sense, women get freedom when they abort? Sure. As do women who want to off their husbands. That is without question.

yup. Although the decision to off one's husband tends to be more drawn out, more calculated. Abortions are easy.

:shudder:

ag

[anthrogirl]

Freedom from what? Responsibility?

Exactly.

ag

[OneFollowingHim]

Exactly.

ag

Which act carries greater virtue (abortion or delivery and child-rearing)?

[Pilgrim]

Which act carries greater virtue (abortion or delivery and child-rearing)?

Bingo. It is sad that in our culture the idea that freedom is more important than responsibility has pervaded. We need to stop worrying about freedoms and rights and start worrying about taking care of business.

[anthrogirl]

Which act carries greater virtue (abortion or delivery and child-rearing)?
In my opinion, delivery and child-rearing (or adoption) carries the greater virtue.

ag

[Wyzaard]

Bingo. It is sad that in our culture the idea that freedom is more important than responsibility has pervaded. We need to stop worrying about freedoms and rights and start worrying about taking care of business.

An abortion is taking care of business... just in a different manner than by your own definitions of 'virtue', or anything else that seems to smack at Victorian values.

But, if I were to take a gander... I would place the virtue on whichever one is the 'best' choice all things considered; this is not an across-the-board either-or with no nuance sort of decision. Having the child would be virtuous if you can both take care of the child and want the child... if not, no.

[Wyzaard]

Every single woman I know who has had an abortion, regardless of how long ago it occured, still feels emotional pain.


Strange... I don't get that at all from those women I know who have aborted; more often I sense they were relieved, particularly my ex who had an abortion a number of years ago. those who I know with unplanned children are the ones I see with emotional problems.


Perhaps a better way for society to deal with the problem of abortion is by addressing the social factors that seem to influence the rates of abortion (like poverty, birth control, abstinence, interpersonal violence, drug abuse and others) rather than subverting these critical links in favor of simplifying and medicalizing these problems away. Call me a hippie, but if we could include more social support within the framework of American capitalism, not only would we see a reduction in abortion rates, but also an increase in other indicators of social health...(but that's a rant for another thread :wink:).


But it needs to be re-iterated: if you want to reduce the number of abortions: provide free birth control, ample education, gender empowerment, and better mother-child-family assistance such as good food, good homes, day care and health care. then, the abortion rate would be next to NIL.

[Pilgrim]

An abortion is taking care of business... just in a different manner than by your own definitions of 'virtue', or anything else that seems to smack at Victorian values.

Did you perchance mean "of" Victorian values? BTW, toward the latter half of the Victorian era things were a pretty loose. Just because the dresses were long and high necked doesn't mean a lot fun was not being had.

Still, how about let's back that up a bit and thing about what you just said. In your mind, the responsible thing to do is have sex when ever you want with out regard to consequence and then take care of the problem by having an abortion? Is that really about responsibility or is it about convenience? At any rate, it's not "taking care of business" if it's a matter of convenience, it's simply getting rid of a burden you don't want and which you should have thought about before you pulled your pants down.

But, if I were to take a gander... I would place the virtue on whichever one is the 'best' choice all things considered; this is not an across-the-board either-or with no nuance sort of decision. Having the child would be virtuous if you can both take care of the child and want the child... if not, no.

The best choice is to be responsible before the act of procreation. Hands down. Curb your hormones or at least use brains at the same time you're using something else and these issues would not even really be present. And then, like a real live grown up, accept the consequences of your actions even when they're not exactly what you had in mind.

[Teallaura]

...
But it needs to be re-iterated: if you want to reduce the number of abortions: provide free birth control, ample education, gender empowerment, and better mother-child-family assistance such as good food, good homes, day care and health care. then, the abortion rate would be next to NIL.

1) Available: Health department, multiple methods; condoms also provided on request without appointment.
2) Available: Required from 5th to 12th grades. Provided by schools and a variety of outside agencies and organizations.
3) Available: See 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.
4) Available: WIC (Also widely regarded as one of the best and most successful government programs ever), Food Stamps, Maternity Waiver, SOBRA, EPSDT, Head Start and various other programs. Also available via charity and pro-life organizations amongst others.

This stuff has been there for ages and is widely available and easily accessible - the abortion rate ain't 'next to nil' yet.

[casaba]

[dictionary definition]Pregnant: having a child or other offspring developing in the body; with child or young, as a woman or female mammal.

Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=pregnant).

Okay, so we are back to the debate whether a fetus is a child. You find one dictionary definition and somehow the debate is decided? C'mon, get real. This whole thead goes nowhere because you have those claiming a child is being killed and those who see it as a bodily process being terminated (that, yes, may have resulted in a child, but not necessarily).

[Teallaura]

Okay, so we are back to the debate whether a fetus is a child. You find one dictionary definition and somehow the debate is decided? C'mon, get real. This whole thead goes nowhere because you have those claiming a child is being killed and those who see it as a bodily process being terminated (that, yes, may have resulted in a child, but not necessarily).

*emphasis mine

Nope, now you have a philosophic debate over what constitutes a child - your own caveat makes it so. You now have a huge burden to prove your philosophy superior to theirs. Can't appeal to definitions - you ruled that out yourself and it wouldn't support your case anyway.

Actually, the debate didn't take that tack - you seem to be wanting to head it that direction. Not surprising, you can't win in the direction the current argument is taking.

Still, it's off topic - you should start another thread.

[neocon_voter]

Okay, so we are back to the debate whether a fetus is a child. You find one dictionary definition and somehow the debate is decided? C'mon, get real. This whole thead goes nowhere because you have those claiming a child is being killed and those who see it as a bodily process being terminated (that, yes, may have resulted in a child, but not necessarily).

Hello again, casaba.
How about medical dictionaries.
How about 4 out of 5 admitting that a child is not only the human being following infancy to about age 12, but also includes the unborn child.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1451535&postcount=31

As soon as the two haploid cells merge successfully (if the 24 hour fertilization period is a success), you have a new human being. That resulting zygote is an organism, and organisms are classified per their species, and as far as I know, every time two humans have mated, the resulting offspring was always a new member of the species Homo sapien (a human being)
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1451503&postcount=27


Neocon_Voter

[anthrogirl]

Strange... I don't get that at all from those women I know who have aborted; more often I sense they were relieved, particularly my ex who had an abortion a number of years ago. those who I know with unplanned children are the ones I see with emotional problems.

Perhaps I should've been more clear--I recounted how the women I know who have aborted feel emotional pain----not neccessarily possessing emotional problems. I believe these are two separate categories of "distress". Admittedly, I have never interviewed a woman who has emotional problems as a result of an abortion (although sometimes such problems can inform a person's childbearing decisions). But for many women in our culture, it is not irrational nor unexpected to experience emotional pain, or even trauma, after an abortion--given the socio-cultural significance of the pregnancy and childbearing experience.

And yes, I agree with you that women can indeed possess emotional problems as a result of mothering an unplanned pregnancy--but it's certainly not the rule. Plenty of mothers worldwide enjoy a successful childrearing experience with their unplanned child(ren). Not every unplanned pregnancy is life-ruining or unsurmountable (I'm not saying that this is your argument, but I do find it to be hyperbolic when people generalize in that way).

But it needs to be re-iterated: if you want to reduce the number of abortions: provide free birth control, ample education, gender empowerment, and better mother-child-family assistance such as good food, good homes, day care and health care. then, the abortion rate would be next to NIL.

All of these are good directives. But how do we provide comprehensive social services within the framework of American capitalism?

My sister-in-law (sort of) lives in Luxembourg with ther husband and three children. She is extremely educated and very successful. But in Luxembourg, if a woman has a baby, she gets at least one year off from work--it's mandated. For the first year, she gets 100% of her salary. For the second year after the birth of her child, she can still remain at home and make up to 75% of her salary. By the third year, she gets 50% of her salary--if she chooses to remain at home with her children. And the quality of life in Luxemburg is unparalleled--it's an extremely wealthy country (and stunning, if you ever get the chance to visit!). You'd never see a system like that in the U.S. :lol:

fwiw,
ag

[casaba]

Nope, now you have a philosophic debate over what constitutes a child - your own caveat makes it so.

Exactly my point. This thread is loaded with people making statements that equate any fetus to a child. Any accusations of 'murder' and the like is based on defining the fetus as a child and (most of) those willing to allow for abortions do not believe this to be true. (I say most to acknowledge those utilitarians who will argue a different route.) I will get back to this below.



Actually, the debate didn't take that tack - you seem to be wanting to head it that direction. Not surprising, you can't win in the direction the current argument is taking.

Still, it's off topic - you should start another thread.

Actually, I think I was getting back to the opening post and attempting to point out that, while the discussion was supposedly about reasons for choosing to have an abortion, most of the posts--including the opening--were taking a definition of fetus that prevented any worthwhile discussion. The discussion was effectively an ego-trip for people who define a fetus as a child and want to see all women who choose abortion as evil or misguided. Nobody has mentioned the one perhaps strongest case for abortion: self defence. No, it doesn't apply in every case, but when it does, how do those absolutists reply? Must a woman continue with a pregnancy, now knowing that it endangers her life?

Now on to Neo:
Hello again, casaba.
How about medical dictionaries.
How about 4 out of 5 admitting that a child is not only the human being following infancy to about age 12, but also includes the unborn child.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1451535&postcount=31

So again, the we are talking about definitions; some say yes, some say no. I would be surprised in more that one in ten would call a fertilized egg a "child".

As soon as the two haploid cells merge successfully (if the 24 hour fertilization period is a success), you have a new human being. That resulting zygote is an organism, and organisms are classified per their species, and as far as I know, every time two humans have mated, the resulting offspring was always a new member of the species Homo sapien (a human being)
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1451503&postcount=27


Neocon_Voter

Okay, so chimeras are actually two human beings? And identical twins are just one? There are countless possibilities to what might happen after "two haploid cells merge"; only a small fraction of these will result in a child being born.

For me, it is clear, the earliest stages of the fetus are not a child while later stages are. I know that many will not agree with this last statement, I believe primarily because of religious teachings. Not much point in discussion with such absolutists. For those who can agree with this statement, the next question is When does the change takes place? That is where this discussion would be in fact a discussion.

[Wyzaard]

Did you perchance mean "of" Victorian values? BTW, toward the latter half of the Victorian era things were a pretty loose. Just because the dresses were long and high necked doesn't mean a lot fun was not being had.


Oh, absolutely! Typically, the tougher the social structures... the more robust the rebellion against them.


Still, how about let's back that up a bit and thing about what you just said. In your mind, the responsible thing to do is have sex when ever you want with out regard to consequence and then take care of the problem by having an abortion? Is that really about responsibility or is it about convenience? At any rate, it's not "taking care of business" if it's a matter of convenience, it's simply getting rid of a burden you don't want and which you should have thought about before you pulled your pants down.

It's about both responsibility and 'conveinence', if by that term you mean making the best decision for you and your family's health and well being. And this is not about having sex 'without regard of the consequenses'; one needs to use birth control... or as it is too often in societies that do not subsidize birth control or have meaningful sex ed or gender empowerment or functioning family welfare services... one needs to have an abortion, taking responsibility for yourself and your family and making the best decision given the circumstances: the burden may not only unwanted and unnecessary, but also unhealthy for the woman and her family.

You have not shown that having an abortion isn't making the responsible choice certain conditions. My ex and I chose abortion, and looking back on it... it was the right decision from a number of angles. Stop making bald assumptions and make a case if you wish to pursue this further.

[Wyzaard]

1) Available: Health department, multiple methods; condoms also provided on request without appointment.

Mostly insufficient, unavailiable, costly, unreliable and unfeasible depending upon other conditions (such as gender empowerment and sex education in the case with condoms)


2) Available: Required from 5th to 12th grades. Provided by schools and a variety of outside agencies and organizations.

Mostly insufficient, thansk to conservatives that have pushed unrealistic and ineffectual abstinance-only programs that do not address the realities of tennage sexuality in particular.


3) Available: See 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.

Largely ignored... on top of still-functioning discrimination, patriarchial gender roles still place women at a disadvantage where choices of sexual activity are concerned.


4) Available: WIC (Also widely regarded as one of the best and most successful government programs ever), Food Stamps, Maternity Waiver, SOBRA, EPSDT, Head Start and various other programs. Also available via charity and pro-life organizations amongst others.


Largely insufficient and inefficient... WIC and other programs have been cut or allowed to not adjust for inflation under conservative rule, and other social programs are disaapearing yearly... day care and health care are largely nonexistant as a viable resource, and most pro-life agencies are only concerned for making sure birth takes place, never mind the 'after' part... unless they scoop up the kid and sell it for the highest bidder.

[Teallaura]

Exactly my point. This thread is loaded with people making statements that equate any fetus to a child. Any accusations of 'murder' and the like is based on defining the fetus as a child and (most of) those willing to allow for abortions do not believe this to be true. (I say most to acknowledge those utilitarians who will argue a different route.) I will get back to this below.You've simply moved the goal posts - there's no good definition in any relevant field that would truly define a fetus as anything but an offspring/child. You can argue it only philosophically but the argument revolves around when motherhood begins not the actual condition of the fetus. You're making a leap of logic - and you've made a mess of your initial case (Hint: 'child' is not the term you are really arguing here. You're using it incorrectly to form this argument. You're actually looking at 'human').



Actually, I think I was getting back to the opening post and attempting to point out that, while the discussion was supposedly about reasons for choosing to have an abortion, most of the posts--including the opening--were taking a definition of fetus that prevented any worthwhile discussion. Which is a side track at best and definitely off topic. The discussion was meaningful enough for the rest of the participants. The problem was that so long as any definition using child was accepted you could not make your 'it's not really a human/person argument. We weren't discussing that line of argumentation (which has been hacked to death elsewhere).

You still have the problem of proving the superiority of your philosophy. You can't prove that the fetus isn't a child - the best you can do is show that your philosophy that the fetus should not be regarded as a human is superior in some way to the opposite philosophy (that the fetus should be regarded as a human). Try to employ science and you will lose and horribly. I'd love to see what basis you would claim superiority on - morality?

The discussion was effectively an ego-trip for people who define a fetus as a child and want to see all women who choose abortion as evil or misguided.Thank you for proving that you did not read the thread.

Nobody has mentioned the one perhaps strongest case for abortion: self defence.I'd take you more seriously if you knew how to argue this. This point is self-preservation not self-defense. It does not require a blanket right to abortion to allow for this (rare) contingency.

No, it doesn't apply in every case, but when it does, how do those absolutists reply? That's not a good sign - you really don't know? What, do you honestly think no one has ever raised the objection before? Most pro-life proponents recognize that the woman has the right to choose herself over her child (and the corollary right to chose her child over herself). In that regard it is not considered murder (in legal terminology it would be considered 'justifiable homicide') while still being considered the killing of a human being.

You are the one being absolutist here - why does the rare occasion of the mother's life being endangered necessitate the 'right' of women to terminate their pregnancies at any point?

Must a woman continue with a pregnancy, now knowing that it endangers her life? No, nor must she terminate it. Either way the child is still regarded as a child. We execute murderers without depriving them of their humanity - really stupid to make lame non-human arguments about the unborn and even dumber to assert that there must be an inconsistency on this point when in fact there is none.

This is a silly line of argumentation - try it with end of life issues and see how far you get.

[Wyzaard]

But for many women in our culture, it is not irrational nor unexpected to experience emotional pain, or even trauma, after an abortion--given the socio-cultural significance of the pregnancy and childbearing experience.

Hmmm... then I would suggest a re-alignment of our cultural values as a part of the gender-empowerment I was speaking of.


All of these are good directives. But how do we provide comprehensive social services within the framework of American capitalism?


Well... I would suggest getting rid of, or radically altering the structure of capitalism; it appears to be the source of so many problems... why not fix it?

[Teallaura]

Mostly insufficient, unavailiable, costly, unreliable and unfeasible depending upon other conditions (such as gender empowerment and sex education in the case with condoms)LOL!!!! Condoms, Depo, Norplant, the Pill are all available readily - most in every county in the US and almost all free of charge or at greatly reduced cost! You really don't know what you are talking about, do you?



Mostly insufficient, thansk to conservatives that have pushed unrealistic and ineffectual abstinance-only programs that do not address the realities of tennage sexuality in particular.LOL! Dude, all public school programs are 'abstinance based', not 'abstinence only'! And you have obviously never seen an abstinance only program!



Largely ignored... on top of still-functioning discrimination, patriarchial gender roles still place women at a disadvantage where choices of sexual activity are concerned.LOL! Never read a court case in your life, have you? Tons of current cases concerning discrimination in any form cite the 14th Amendment. Her rights are equal under the law - period.



Largely insufficient and inefficient... WIC and other programs have been cut or allowed to not adjust for inflation under conservative rule, and other social programs are disaapearing yearly... day care and health care are largely nonexistant as a viable resource, and most pro-life agencies are only concerned for making sure birth takes place, never mind the 'after' part... unless they scoop up the kid and sell it for the highest bidder.Last WIC cuts I saw were in the Clinton Admin - no matter though. The truth is you have a point only on day care - the programs I cited are far from 'disappearing' and do a tremendous amount to secure food and medical care for children. Guess again.

[jordanriver]

Hmmm... then I would suggest a re-alignment of our cultural values as a part of the gender-empowerment I was speaking of.



Well... I would suggest getting rid of, or radically altering the structure of capitalism; it appears to be the source of so many problems... why not fix it?

How are you going to do that without stealing?

JR

[Wyzaard]

LOL!!!! Condoms, Depo, Norplant, the Pill are all available readily - most in every county in the US and almost all free of charge or at greatly reduced cost!

Linky? I know very well what the availiability of publically-funded birth control is like... my ex and I were unable to obtain it; a common occurance in these abstinance-only times.


LOL! Dude, all public school programs are 'abstinance based', not 'abstinence only'! And you have obviously never seen an abstinance only program!


All schools recieving federal funding must adhere to abstinance-only mandates, or risk cut-offs. A couple of states skirt the line with 'abstinance-plus', which discusses alternative sexual practices in addition to abstinance. Nevertheless, the vast majority of these schools proscribe abstinance as the ONLY viable option for teenagers, mention birth control only in relation to a married couple, and completely prohibit mention of oral sex, abortion, and the actual feelings that these kids are having. I would suggest reading Judith Levine's Harmful to Minors for more info,, or check out the prohibited sex-ed subjects under SC teacher's guidelines, which I had to follow.


LOL! Never read a court case in your life, have you? Tons of current cases concerning discrimination in any form cite the 14th Amendment. Her rights are equal under the law - period.

Then why are salaries for women still ~75% of men's on average? Granted, there is a significant gender differences between job types that accounts for some of the discrepancies, but why do those differences exist then? Why do married women make even less of a percentage under married men's pay? Why do sexual harassment laws remain necessary? Why are there persisting inequalities in the public school classroom? Why is the ERA still a living issue?


Last WIC cuts I saw were in the Clinton Admin - no matter though. The truth is you have a point only on day care - the programs I cited are far from 'disappearing' and do a tremendous amount to secure food and medical care for children. Guess again.

Linky? I have found no such programs of worth during my years both being poor and researching poverty; I agree with the Clinton jab, though... he really screwed up a ton of families through 'welfare reform'... and again, most of these services have been cut, shuffled off to overburdened state agencies, or not adjusted to cost of living increases.

[Wyzaard]

How are you going to do that without stealing?


What's going on now is stealing... stealing from those at the bottom who do practically all of the work, and giving it to those at the top who do the least.

[anthrogirl]

Hmmm... then I would suggest a re-alignment of our cultural values as a part of the gender-empowerment I was speaking of.

This would certainly be a good start. While women have been granted equal rights under the law, we still exist in a form of structural discrimination--a somewhat elusive feature that results in inequalities such as the "glass ceiling", division of labor, or even exploitation in the media (particularly for minority women).

Well... I would suggest getting rid of, or radically altering the structure of capitalism; it appears to be the source of so many problems... why not fix it?
What many people fail to recognize (as is so nicely demonstrated in this thread), is that the existance of social service programs does not mean that they are successful ones. Most of the American welfare system (and health care too, for that matter) originated during the depression and war eras. What we have now is a patchwork system of support services that are rather ineffective (i.e. an astonishing number of children in this country do not have health coverage nor do they receive adequate nourishment--despite programs like WIC, Medicade and state-run programs.), and completely wasteful (Source: Kaiser Family Foundation, WHO, et al.). They are also programs that are structured to be difficult--indeed humiliating to obtain (this makes sense, historically, because the protestant work ethic tends to place wealth on higher moral ground than poverty--that's a big statement, and probably worthy of it's own thread--this may not be the place to debate it). Clearly (and I don't think anyone here would disagree with this), we need to reform our social service systems.

ag

[jordanriver]

What's going on now is stealing... stealing from those at the bottom who do practically all of the work, and giving it to those at the top who do the least.

You dodged the question.
How are you going to get rid of/radically alter the structure of capitalism without stealing.

JR

[themuzicman]

If poverty were the source of crime, then the 1930s should have resulted in a crime wave.

It didn't.

Crime is a result of immorality.

Michael

[Wyzaard]

You dodged the question.

No... I properly re-framed it:


How are you going to get rid of/radically alter the structure of capitalism without stealing.


By radically altering capitalism as to prevent and/or diminish the exploitation of the lower and middle classes by those at the top, the theft inherent in the system will be largely eliminated. The affluent are the thieves in our society.

[Wyzaard]

If poverty were the source of crime, then the 1930s should have resulted in a crime wave.

What did you think the Works Progress administration and WWII was for? Diverting proletarian anger... there were tons of strikes in those years, most put down violently by bosses and the government; organized crime had it's most formative years then too... oh, and massive migrations out west, with many deaths on those journeys too.

Crime is the result of social, economic, political, and cultural conditions... improve those, and you will counter crime. Or are you suggesting that everyone has an equal 'sinful' chance of being a petty drug dealer or car thief regardless of social class? Really now... you can't honestly believe that, can you?

[Wyzaard]

Oh... and some material on abstinance-only education:

http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/impactabstinence.pdf

[jordanriver]

No... I properly re-framed it:



By radically altering capitalism as to prevent and/or diminish the exploitation of the lower and middle classes by those at the top, the theft inherent in the system will be largely eliminated. The affluent are the thieves in our society.

You still haven't said 'HOW'
You already said capitalism should be 'radically altered'. Now you're added your reason (your 'why')
But you still didn't say HOW.

How would you 'radically alter' capitalism.
What method would you employ?

JR

[Pilgrim]

Linky? I know very well what the availiability of publically-funded birth control is like... my ex and I were unable to obtain it; a common occurance in these abstinance-only times.

O my gosh, if you were unable to get birth control it's because you were either to caught up in getting your pants down to be worried with it or you're just to stupid to find it.

All schools recieving federal funding must adhere to abstinance-only mandates, or risk cut-offs. A couple of states skirt the line with 'abstinance-plus', which discusses alternative sexual practices in addition to abstinance. Nevertheless, the vast majority of these schools proscribe abstinance as the ONLY viable option for teenagers, mention birth control only in relation to a married couple, and completely prohibit mention of oral sex, abortion, and the actual feelings that these kids are having. I would suggest reading Judith Levine's Harmful to Minors for more info,, or check out the prohibited sex-ed subjects under SC teacher's guidelines, which I had to follow.

Your statement above is a false one. there are not abstinance only programs. Abstinance based maybe but not only. I can only conclude that you are being deliberately misleading or you just really don't know what you're talking about.

Linky? I have found no such programs of worth during my years both being poor and researching poverty; I agree with the Clinton jab, though... he really screwed up a ton of families through 'welfare reform'... and again, most of these services have been cut, shuffled off to overburdened state agencies, or not adjusted to cost of living increases.

Yes, because if Wyz can't find an internet link to it it must not be out there. Please. I personally work with many of these programs making referrals and helping with grant writing, they're out there, all it takes is a little patience.

[casaba]

Really, Teallaura, could you try to read what I wrote and respond to that? I'll take your reply, point by point, without cutting out the important bits--as you did with my previous reply.

You've simply moved the goal posts - there's no good definition in any relevant field that would truly define a fetus as anything but an offspring/child. You can argue it only philosophically but the argument revolves around when motherhood begins not the actual condition of the fetus. You're making a leap of logic - and you've made a mess of your initial case (Hint: 'child' is not the term you are really arguing here. You're using it incorrectly to form this argument. You're actually looking at 'human').

I am moving the goal posts (see emphasized section above)? Let me correct myself first (and risk the accusation again): I had repeated an earlier posted error that called an embryo a fetus from the moment of conception. An embryo progresses to a fetus as some time round 8 weeks after conception. Now back to the discussion: Correct me if I am wrong but I understand that you consider any form of abortion murder. So what does it take for a murder to occur? Your claim that 'human' is better than 'child' or 'person' is odd. It is most often an adjective, not a noun--every cell in our body is 'human', including cancerous cells. I would suggest that a 'person' (of which 'child' is a subclassification) being killed is the requirement for murder.

Which is a side track at best and definitely off topic. The discussion was meaningful enough for the rest of the participants. The problem was that so long as any definition using child was accepted you could not make your 'it's not really a human/person argument. We weren't discussing that line of argumentation (which has been hacked to death elsewhere).
There was a bit of argument going on between people who were actually answering the explicit question, "What reasons a woman has for choosing abortion?", and people posting rebuttals that were based on the implicit idea in the opening that all abortions are murder. The latter argument allows practically no wiggle room for abortion and thus makes all reasons for choosing abortion immoral (save the case of self-defence--or, as you like, self-preservation). However, if this argument can be shown to be false, then the original question is valid, and interesting.


You still have the problem of proving the superiority of your philosophy. You can't prove that the fetus isn't a child - the best you can do is show that your philosophy that the fetus should not be regarded as a human is superior in some way to the opposite philosophy (that the fetus should be regarded as a human). Try to employ science and you will lose and horribly. I'd love to see what basis you would claim superiority on - morality?

Now here is where you completely edited out the basis of my argument. I do not claim to know when an embryo/fetus can be considered a person. However, I will say that the claim that it starts at the moment of conception (i.e. the moment a new, unique set of DNA is created) is false. We have long known that one unique set of DNA can split and form two persons. We now know that two new sets of DNA can merge to form one person (reference chimeras). These facts alone are good enough argument for me that the terminating a pregnancy at the earliest stages is not murder.

Thank you for proving that you did not read the thread.

I leave in your quote for consistency, but the meaning of if it I do not follow. I had read the previous posts. Need more?


I'd take you more seriously if you knew how to argue this. This point is self-preservation not self-defense. It does not require a blanket right to abortion to allow for this (rare) contingency.

That's not a good sign - you really don't know? What, do you honestly think no one has ever raised the objection before? Most pro-life proponents recognize that the woman has the right to choose herself over her child (and the corollary right to chose her child over herself). In that regard it is not considered murder (in legal terminology it would be considered 'justifiable homicide') while still being considered the killing of a human being.

Well, if most anti-abortion activists believe as you do, I have been corrected. As far as me thinking I originated the 'self-defence' argument, where do you get that idea?


You are the one being absolutist here - why does the rare occasion of the mother's life being endangered necessitate the 'right' of women to terminate their pregnancies at any point?

Where did I say that? You really should reread my post. The whole point of my post was that the absolute ban on abortion (which, again, thank you for conceding cases of self-defence) is just as wrong as "the 'right' of women to terminate their pregnancies at any point". There is some point at which we should consider an embryo/fetus to have developed 'person'-hood. When this point occurs should be discussed and debated.

No, nor must she terminate it. Either way the child is still regarded as a child. We execute murderers without depriving them of their humanity - really stupid to make lame non-human arguments about the unborn and even dumber to assert that there must be an inconsistency on this point when in fact there is none.

This is a silly line of argumentation - try it with end of life issues and see how far you get.
'She must terminate it"?!! Again, please read my posts and reply to what I say. The whole self-defence topic we apparently agree on (other than the defence versus preservation issue).

[SpiritWoman]

1) Available: Health department, multiple methods; condoms also provided on request without appointment.
2) Available: Required from 5th to 12th grades. Provided by schools and a variety of outside agencies and organizations.
3) Available: See 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.
4) Available: WIC (Also widely regarded as one of the best and most successful government programs ever), Food Stamps, Maternity Waiver, SOBRA, EPSDT, Head Start and various other programs. Also available via charity and pro-life organizations amongst others.

This stuff has been there for ages and is widely available and easily accessible - the abortion rate ain't 'next to nil' yet.


Greetings Teallaura,

Your points are good ones but just as these programs are available, they are governed by governemnts funding of which they are severely lacking. So yes, on the books we have these programs, but most all do not benefit from them. Especially those who do not live in countries that even partialy fund the llikes of these.

As life should be celebrated in all socieites, and a healthy respect for the sacredness of the womb and what is generated from it protected from vicious attacks in culteral imbalance in the unhealthy historial practice of protection of Patrilineal inheritence, we will never overcome the shame of a woman's fall from grace as it has effected all corners of the world where there is human existance.

As proven the majority of responsibility for creating a child is the mothers, if the female, being an adult or child is FIRST considered in shame for having been inpregnated in the first place, then comes the further shame of carrying a child not of a contracted marriage, or rape, or incestual rape, or the result of adulterous behavior then further shame and humiliating circumstance in knowing you gave up/abandoned your child, aborted your child, or worse keeping the child and exposing it to a life of poverty, disease, abuse, humiliating history of it's origin, should I go on? What about the future of this child that is un-wanted, forgotten, left to the wills of the law of the land? If any? Where does the moral responsibility lie? What is the correct decision for the sake of the life that is the result of any of these circumstances? The sin ultimately lies within a woman's womb. The seed that impregnates.

As long as societies act against these unwanted children from the very beginning, in catagorizing deviant sexual behavior as the product of any particular societies ills then there will always be abortion. Be it legal or il-legal. Right or wrong. Punish the womb, punish the child.

The child is always the victim of the shame of thier fathers, thier lack of respect for thier own seed and the womb that carries it.

Peace
SW

[Wyzaard]

You still haven't said 'HOW'
You already said capitalism should be 'radically altered'. Now you're added your reason (your 'why')


Sorry... since when must I provide all the answers, when this is a matter that must be reached through acknowledgement of the problems and a well-thought out democratic consensus? There are many ways of going about the reform and/or overthrow of capitalist-engendered inequalities; care to mention an issue in particular for us to bat ideas around with? How about wealth/income disparities, wanna start there?

[Wyzaard]

O my gosh, if you were unable to get birth control it's because you were either to caught up in getting your pants down to be worried with it or you're just to stupid to find it.

Oh dear... you're getting snippy.

We switched BC pills due to her insurance cutting off her co-pay, and there was a week and a half window where we were scrambling for alternatives that simply weren't to be found in the SC social system. We eventually just borrowed some cash... but too late.


Your statement above is a false one. there are not abstinance only programs. Abstinance based maybe but not only. I can only conclude that you are being deliberately misleading or you just really don't know what you're talking about.

Linky? Now you're getting mildly slanderous. Explain the fine distinction between 'abstinance-based' and 'abstinance-only'; do the former cover teen sex in a balanced, accepting manner, or do they apply the 'the sex we're talking about is only within a married context, everything else is illegitimate' model like SC does?


Yes, because if Wyz can't find an internet link to it it must not be out there. Please. I personally work with many of these programs making referrals and helping with grant writing, they're out there, all it takes is a little patience.

Linky? If you wish to maintain this claim, give some comparitive stats... note that Planned Parenthood might disagree with you on that one, so I'd try elsewhere. My experiences being poor certainly didn't pan out your conclusions.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/news-articles-press/politics-policy-issues/budget-cuts-11022.htm

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/ppaustin/family-planning-funding-cuts%E2%80%94fact-sheet.htm

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/international-work/pa-planned-parenthood-association-of-bucks-county-and-k-met-.htm

But enough with the facts... why the personal attacks?