Abortion. Pro Life or Pro Choice TS Men and Woman only please.

[Tammy Hope]

... I can't say I'm either way.

What I will say is... I think sex should be licensed !

Stupid people shouldn't breed.

I'm also a fan of "older" parenting. Someone 18 years old (or for gods sake younger) shouldn't be able to breed.

Slightly off topic...

Why is it in the U.S.A. a woman on WIC (http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/) (comes from tax payers $, my money) can go and get all the stuff she needs to care for a baby, just so she can afford 100 lbs if dog food. Saw that in front of me at a Wal-Mart on Friday and it pissed me off.

If you're going to have the child, then don't go begging for assistance just so you can be comfortable in a lifestyle you obviously can't afford.

/end rant.

Well, I agree with the principle but, on the other hand...

It's kind of silly for WIC to exist, and be determined to give out supplies in any case, and qualify for it...

and NOT take it.

I can certainly agree that a person who qualifies should make better choices about what to do with their discretionary money than supporting a pet (or smoking, drinking, gambling, partying, whatever which a lot of people with little money also do)  - no argument there.

But as long as there IS a WIC program then I for one don't see the moral value in being above taking it.

[Asfsd4214]

I haven't read any of the rest of the thread yet, but I'm completely 100% against abortion in all but situations where it will likely be required due to extreme risk of complication for the mother.

My view of it is that once conceived, the fertilized egg represents a real person who may very well have been born and had a full life without intervention. And I don't think anyone has the right, mother included, to terminate.

I have a lot of philosophical views that relate to my stance on abortion, but I've had bad experiences with abortion debates running on for extremely long periods of time. No consensus is ever reached.

It probably doesn't help my impartiality that my dad wanted to have me aborted. 

Thankfully for me my mother is also pro-life.

EDIT: So I read the rest of the thread now. Doesn't surprise me at all to learn that completely pro-lifer's (as in, against abortion for all non-medical circumstances, including rape) are in a minority here of 8 to 1.

Just a couple things I would like to add since there doesn't seem to be anyone else to really speak up for the pro-life side of the argument...

In a discussion of the balance of rights between a potential human and an actual human, I tend to favor the actual human.

I would argue that the problem there is it isn't the same right's in question for both. It's the mother's right to have control of her body and the potential human's right to live at all.

I feel the child's right to live is more important than the temporary restriction of rights to the mother, because the only alternative to violating the mother's right to control her body for a limited period of time, is violating the rights of the child to live, at all, forever.

I'd also like to add that I reject the notion that you have to be religious to be pro-life. I consider myself agnostic personally.

I belive it's better to not allow a life to begin, that would be unloved or unwanted
this

This is another notion that I reject outright, who are you to say that someone should be euthanized because their life might suck.

[SusanKG]

Usually I read other posts for up-to-date positions before giving mine. I can change sides (occasionally), certainly see other positions and beliefs. On Women's Reproductive Rights, I'm an absolutist. I do not like abortion, I have never had one, even with modern surgery methods I will never be in a position to have to consider having one, but - it would be my decision whether or not to do so if circumstances arose calling for that decision. It would not be yours - stay the hell out of it!

That said, every thing possible should be done to aid any woman facing that decision.  Adoption help, medical care for tragically ill babies, medical care for the mother, child raising assistance, anything mothers in at-risk positions need to successfully raise a child, well or otherwise. As former President Bill Clinton said, "Abortion should be legal, safe and rare."

Any other policy is a blatant attack on a fundimental human right, an imperative for half the population, important for all. Most, of course not all, but most comes from the religious busy-bodies attempting to force their belief structure on all of society. I reject that.

SusanKG

[Asfsd4214]

Usually I read other posts for up-to-date positions before giving mine. I can change sides (occasionally), certainly see other positions and beliefs. On Women's Reproductive Rights, I'm an absolutist. I do not like abortion, I have never had one, even with modern surgery methods I will never be in a position to have to consider having one, but - it would be my decision whether or not to do so if circumstances arose calling for that decision. It would not be yours - stay the hell out of it!

That said, every thing possible should be done to aid any woman facing that decision.  Adoption help, medical care for tragically ill babies, medical care for the mother, child raising assistance, anything mothers in at-risk positions need to successfully raise a child, well or otherwise. As former President Bill Clinton said, "Abortion should be legal, safe and rare."

Any other policy is a blatant attack on a fundimental human right, an imperative for half the population, important for all. Most, of course not all, but most comes from the religious busy-bodies attempting to force their belief structure on all of society. I reject that.

SusanKG

I'm not a religious busy body. What you need to understand is that people who are pro-life like myself tend to consider the conceived child to be, at any stage of development, to be a human being, with the same right to not be murdered as any other human.

I don't want to deny anyone rights over their body, but I would to protect what I see as the attempted murder of a child.

If you consider the abortion to be murder, then it doesn't matter what rights the mother should have over her body, they are secondary to the rights of the child to not be murdered.

I strongly believe in human rights, from my perspective being pro-life is just another way that I am pro respect of people's rights. The difference is I define the conceived child to be of same value as one that is born, and unfortunately there's no way to respect the rights of both.

[Miniar]

I'm not a religious busy body. What you need to understand is that people who are pro-life like myself tend to consider the conceived child to be, at any stage of development, to be a human being, with the same right to not be murdered as any other human.

I don't want to deny anyone rights over their body, but I would to protect what I see as the attempted murder of a child.

If you consider the abortion to be murder, then it doesn't matter what rights the mother should have over her body, they are secondary to the rights of the child to not be murdered.

I strongly believe in human rights, from my perspective being pro-life is just another way that I am pro respect of people's rights. The difference is I define the conceived child to be of same value as one that is born, and unfortunately there's no way to respect the rights of both.

What about self defence?

A woman is allowed to defend herself, even to the point of inflicting lethal bodily harm, to an outside assailant, no?
No one would convict a woman of murder if she defended herself, for example, against a rapist.

Why does a collection of cells with the potential to grow to a child have greater rights to a woman's body than a woman herself?

I really do mean these questions, I want to understand "why" this opinion.

[Just Kate]

Pro-Choice.  It should only be for rape, incest or when the Mother's life is in danger.  As a means of birth control, No.

Enough said.



Hugs and Love
Janet

LOL!  I'm Pro-Life with the exact same exceptions!  Crazy how that works.

[Suzy]

Well I am closest to pro life.  But I am afraid I disappoint both camps.

In the case of rape, or when the mother's life is in danger, of course the woman should be allowed a choice.  Although these cases are rare, they are not unheard of.  In fact, I have friends in each situation.  In both cases they were condemned by pro-lifers.  I think that is shameful.

Other than that above, we are all pro choice.  We choose to have sex.  Yes, no birth control is perfect.  But if we are adult enough to have sex we should be adult enough to deal with the consequences.  Society has done a bad job of teaching this thing called responsibility.

I also think it is criminal for some to focus on saving babies and forget that this will be (or already is, depending on how you see things) a human being.  In other words, don't save a baby only to have that child in abject poverty or out on the streets or malnourished or abused or born addicted to drugs.  If a person is really pro life, s/he should be so consistently, else I have reason to doubt the sincerity of the individual, as well as the validity of his/her ethics.  If we made having children less of a stigma, made adoption a less complicated choice, and actually made it possible for single mothers to raise children if they choose, abortion would not seem the only option to many girls.

And then there is the part I will never understand:  Those who kill in the name of preventing death.  Well I guess we will not have much disagreement there.

Now that I have probably offended everyone here, I will stop.

Kristi

[Silver]

Medicare will pay for tubal ligation or vasectomy if you are 25 or more and have 2 children or more. I agree that not allowing you to have it done is wrong but it is like the hoops we go through to make sure we aren't making a mistake. I think if you change your mind later, you deal with it since you are only dealing with the consequences of your actions. These surgeries are considered permanent but can sometimes be reversed.

I don't understand why it's such a big deal to other people. Isn't the world overpopulated already? If someone wants to sterilize themselves, why should we stop them?

[LivingInGrey]

(Ok now that I have some internet back... hopefully)

There isn't a clear way to understand why a lot of Doc's wont do something like that for someone. I have looked into it and there's no medical reason why a Doc can't do a procedure like that to anyone that's completed puberty.

The issue lies between Morality and Faith. Most doctors are bound by those two things not to mess with God's will, depending on the faith of the doctor. For those that 'say' they don't follow a religious background while at work, they'll say that it's a liability for the hospital. In the event that down the road I want to have children, I could press charges against the hospital and the doc that did the procedure.

At least these are the reasons I've been told by people in the medical community.

Other than that above, we are all pro choice.  We choose to have sex.  Yes, no birth control is perfect.  But if we are adult enough to have sex we should be adult enough to deal with the consequences.  Society has done a bad job of teaching this thing called responsibility.

Kristi

Is a polite way to say what I mean when i say "Stupid people shouldn't breed"

[Asfsd4214]

What about self defence?

A woman is allowed to defend herself, even to the point of inflicting lethal bodily harm, to an outside assailant, no?
No one would convict a woman of murder if she defended herself, for example, against a rapist.

Why does a collection of cells with the potential to grow to a child have greater rights to a woman's body than a woman herself?

I really do mean these questions, I want to understand "why" this opinion.

Because the rapist has committed a crime, the potential human has not. It isn't the conceived potential child's fault it was conceived, it is not responsible.

[Miniar]

Because the rapist has committed a crime, the potential human has not. It isn't the conceived potential child's fault it was conceived, it is not responsible.

so, since it's presence in the body against the woman's will is okay cause it's legal?
It's only because of the legal status of the infringement on the woman's body?

[SusanKG]

Well, I called no particular person a busy-body, and hopefully, most self-called "pro-life" persons didn't take my comments as an accusation. That said, anyone that would require and force by law childbirth upon another person is not "pro-life", they are anti-abortion rights, and contribute to women who do  not hold that position to be considered second-rate humans, not in charge of themselves, but under control of all the mulahs and other finger waggers.
To be clear, you do not have a right to enter my body and live their for any amount of time if I do not want you there. Oh, I think I hear a controversal posting on make-up elsewhere calling me away. 

SusanKG

[Asfsd4214]

Well, I called no particular person a busy-body, and hopefully, most self-called "pro-life" persons didn't take my comments as an accusation. That said, anyone that would require and force by law childbirth upon another person is not "pro-life", they are anti-abortion rights, and contribute to women who do  not hold that position to be considered second-rate humans, not in charge of themselves, but under control of all the mulahs and other finger waggers.
To be clear, you do not have a right to enter my body and live their for any amount of time if I do not want you there. Oh, I think I hear a controversal posting on make-up elsewhere calling me away. 

SusanKG

I guess I just don't agree.

There is no way to keep the child alive outside of its mother. It'd be great if there was, but there isn't. You do have the right to control your body, but in my view the child also has the right to live, and its right to live supersedes your rights temporarily.

That said, anyone that would require and force by law childbirth upon another person is not "pro-life", they are anti-abortion rights

You are defining abortion as a right, which I don't think it is.

But if you'd prefer to call it anti abortion rights, then yes, I'm anti abortion "rights".

so, since it's presence in the body against the woman's will is okay cause it's legal?
It's only because of the legal status of the infringement on the woman's body?

I don't care about its legality.

The fact is, however it got there, it's there now. I just can't support people having an abortion and thus killing it. My view is that whatever other outstanding ethical problems there are, they're not as bad as the ethical problem of killing someone. And to me, and I'd imagine most pro-lifer's, it IS a "someone".

It's a bad situation beyond anyone's control, and there's no answer that's completely without moral problems. I'm just in favor of what I see as the lesser of two evils.

[Miniar]

I don't care about its legality.

The fact is, however it got there, it's there now. I just can't support people having an abortion and thus killing it. My view is that whatever other outstanding ethical problems there are, they're not as bad as the ethical problem of killing someone. And to me, and I'd imagine most pro-lifer's, it IS a "someone".

It's a bad situation beyond anyone's control, and there's no answer that's completely without moral problems. I'm just in favor of what I see as the lesser of two evils.

I asked because you said; "Because the rapist has committed a crime, the potential human has not."

The way I see it, to someone who doesn't want it, being pregnant can be viewed as torture, and a tortured person has the right to defend herself from her torturer, and in this situation, even if it's not the "fault" of the potential person, the pregnancy is the torturer.

[SusanKG]

I guess I just don't agree.

You do have the right to control your body, but in my view the child also has the right to live, and its right to live supersedes your rights temporarily.

You are defining abortion as a right, which I don't think it is.

But if you'd prefer to call it anti abortion rights, then yes, I'm anti abortion "rights".

I don't care about its legality.

It's a bad situation beyond anyone's control, and there's no answer that's completely without moral problems. I'm just in favor of what I see as the lesser of two evils.

Yes, you most certainly do not agree.

Then I don't have a right to control my body, but you do.

The U.S. Supreme Court said it is a right, and a majority of Americans think it is a right.

You're Anti abortion "rights". Fair enough.

Interesting. Obviously it's your morality first, the law someplace else.

But it is not beyond anyone's control! It is in the control of the individual woman.


SusanKG

[The None Blonde]

Hate to be the person that starts this...

But from a biological perspective, to a point, a foetus is no more alive than  your hair is...

At the point where consiousness begins... yes, after that is murder... and its why abortion has limits of time...

However, when the foetus is no more alive than a cut healing... (stem cells diferentiating to form something ie, in this case, skin cells.) I don't really belive its possible to murder something that isn't alive.

If you belive celular activity is life... then I demand you never again injure yourself... that kills cells... Murderer...

[Silver]

If you belive celular activity is life... then I demand you never again injure yourself... that kills cells... Murderer...

That theory would throw vegetarianism down the tubes.

[The None Blonde]

In soviet russia, Controversial is you...

[Hannah]

Why does a collection of cells with the potential to grow to a child have greater rights to a woman's body than a woman herself?

Hear, hear. Well put.

I remember in a freshman sociology class we had to write a paper on really anything we wanted from current events, with legalization of marijuana and abortion expressly prohibited. The professor was just tired of hearing it.

The U.S. Supreme Court said it is a right, and a majority of Americans think it is a right.

In my book that pretty much settles it. The prolifers have been doing a very clever end run around it for a while now but if they keep poking the bear they're going to get bit.

[Alyssa M.]

Susan, I think that was pretty weak sauce. The U.S. Supreme Court along with a majority of Americans have a long history of denying rights to people who deserved them. There's a fair debate to be had over whether the status quo unfairly denies rights to women, or to fetuses, or strikes the right balance. But you seem to be saying that just because abortion is at present a Constitutionally-protected right, it ought to be. Well I agree with your conclusion, but not the logic that brought you to it.

I think NB's is closer to the mark. I don't agree with her definition of life -- really, I think personhood is what we're after more than just life -- but I agree that fetuses don't rise to a level that deserves legal protection as a person. This debate is so slippery because it's really about what it means to be a person, and that's a difficult thing to define no matter how you approach it.