Pro Choice or Not

[chobie]

The discussion that I was hoping to happen is exactly what you have done. You have tried to think up situations/scenarios and put then out for comment, instead of simply stating this is the way it is and this is the way it will always be.QUOTE]


I was wrong.

 

[declansdad]

I'm sory but I will not be answering anymore of your questions. No matter what I say wou manage to turn it around in another direction and try to paint me as the bad guy.

I have to go do something else now. Just wanted to let everyone know that I will not be able to answer your questions for a few hours.

 

[chobie]

I'm sory but I will not be answering anymore of your questions. No matter what I say wou manage to turn it around in another direction and try to paint me as the bad guy.

I have to go do something else now. Just wanted to let everyone know that I will not be able to answer your questions for a few hours.

No need to apologize. You never answered any of the questions anyway. Have a nice day.

 

[Pigeon]

Adoption is a wonderful alternative, so many wonderful parent want children and can give what, sometimes, what a biological parent can't.

As a 100% pro-choice mother, who has adopted, this line of thinking makes me want to scream.

Adoption is not a "cure" for abortion. Do ten minutes' worth of research on the after effects of placing a child for adoption, for the birthmother and for the adopted child, and you will see why.

This is so obvious that even the anti-choice organizations don't push it any more. Now they try to pretend that there will be all sorts of support services for the single mother and that really, being a single mom isn't at all hard.

And for the "there is never a good reason to abort" crowd, hogwash. I have a medical condition where it would be very bad for me to get pregnant, and quite possibly could cause my death. I have two existing children who need a mother. The needs of my existing children outweigh the needs of an embryo any day of the week.

 

[Ariel Mae]

There could always be reasons which would vindicate her--maybe there were other relationship problems like abuse or control issues on his part which made her think that allowing him to know about the abortion beforehand or ask his opinion would lead to him trying to control her. Maybe she thought that he would be too emotional to be able to make the sensible choice of abortion and thought that she would take that burden on for him by not asking him to be part of something he morally disapproved of. Could be a ton of reasons. I'll just assume none of those are the case.)

You're right in assuming none of those are the case.

If this is an accurate story of what happened, then it seems these folks must have had serious relationship problems

But you're wrong in assuming this.

They had the perfect relationship up until the 'Oh, by the way, I had an abortion.' conversation.

You can't place X and Y to equal Z from a word problem that only has Z, ya know.

But the problems in this case are not problems related to abortion--they are much more general relationship problems.

But this was about the abortion. They had no problems prior to the woman taking 'mothers' lead', as she puts it to me.

But notice, the issue here is the kind of relationship my GF and I have. It has nothing to do with any rights of mine.

Yes, but that is an entirely different situation.

Until you meet my friends, don't assume it's not what I say. You can't. You don't know me, nor my friends. Nor do you know what they've gone through/what they haven't.

So in the situation of your friend, what do you think the woman should have done?

Told him. BOTH times. Given him something, given him a chance to sit down, and think, "Okay, so she's wanting an abortion. Why?", and to discuss it with her.

I think it's selfish for the mother to just go and say, "Hi, honey, how was work? Oh, by the way, I'm no longer pregnant."

That puts a great deal of stress on the father, especially if he had no clue she was going into the procedure.

Now if she says that and she goes and gets the abortion, has she given him the "say" you are looking for?

Yes, because she,

A: Told him.

B: Discussed it with him.

C: In this case, the 'tiebreaker' was the mother. I can't say it's going to be the same for all cases.

And, as for adoption...it's not a 'cure' for anything. I'm sorry, but, comparing it to abortion, I would rather see my child/fetus die in the hands of a doctor/medically trained professional than in the hands of a (possible) rapist/murderer/molester/robber/etc.

And as for 'safe sex'...there's really no such thing. Not 100%. Not even 97%. So, what, all married couples are supposed to abstain, now? "Honey, we can't boink tonight, I don't want an abortion tomorrow."

There have always been ways of getting rid of unwanted children before or after birth, but these who are pro life never seem to have an answer to what happens to the child.

Even if you make it illegal...I mean, look at the early sixties, fifties, even...illegal contraception and illegal/botched abortions were being done...quite honestly, wouldn't it be better to have it legal and safe, than illegal and done in the alleys?

You never answered any of the questions anyway.

He answered far more than you did!

His answers were, "I don't know." in relation to the 'tiebreaker' theory. Or did you somehow miss that?? (Btw, he's answered it....MANY times...)

 

[JennyMominRI]

To those of you who say you would have a baby at the risk of your own life, I tell this for you..I've told this before and actually went through this real time on the boards..
First you should know that all I ever wanted was a big family..I've wanted to have lots of kids since I can remember.I was pregnant with my DD when I was diagnosed with AIDS..I was in very early pregnancy and was advised to abort. I was told it would speed up the HIV. It would make me sick,make me die sooner etc.. I chose not too..My beautiful daughter is 15 now.
When I was 30 I developed cardiomyopathy, the number one cause of heart transplants...I experienced congestive heart failure. I was literally drowning in my own bodily fluids... 3 years later I had mini-strokes..I lost the ability to move my entire left side.. I was told then no more kids..The strain on my heart would kill me.. The plan was to use 2 forms of birth control until Ed had a vasectomy, which was being planned.. I did not have a Tubal Ligation because ,with all of my health conditions, the risk of surgery seemed higher than the risk of getting pregnant while using 2 forms of BC.. I lost that gamble.. What they didn't know was that the anti-hiv meds I was taking made the pill inneffective..In fact I didn't find that info didn't come out until a year or so ago.
Obviously, I got pregnant.. My risks were very very high. I was at risk heart failure, stroke, etc...I was also not in the same stage of HIV infection that I was years earlier. My immune system was far more compromised than it was years before when I had my kids and the anti-hiv meds along with the heart and blood pressure meds were teterogenic sp.? They were extrememly harmful to the fetus. One of them frequently causes 2nd term miscarriage.. In short odds of me and a child surviving were slim..The best I could hope for was that maybe I would only have a stroke...I'm sorry,but I've been there once and it wasn't fun, nor was the idea of drowning in my own bodily fluids fun.
And I have 3 kids. 2 of them would go right back to the man who gave me HIV, if I died..And then there was Taralyn, the child that Ed and I rased for 10 years after her mother abandoned her. I could leave her motherless ....again.
I spoke to my rabbi who told me that jewish law REQUIRES abortion if the life of the mother is at stake.. TO continue a pregnancy that will kill you is akin to suicide ,under Jewish Law..There was a poster on another thread recently who said that a mother whose life is at risk due to pregnancy should have a c-section..I'm sorry,but do you realize how risky major abdominal surgery is to someone whose immune system is severly compromised, and anyway,who is going to *deliver* an 8 week embryo? What is the point of that?
Sometimes things are ugly and there is no easy answer...I wanted more kids.. I wanted that baby with ED. Until January of this year that pregnancy was the worst thing that ever happened to me. It was worse than beng diagnosed with AIDS, worse than CHF and mini-strokes..Being pregnant with a baby I wanted and knowing I could not keep it was hell. I had an obligation to the people who were alive, to Ed, to my kids. If that's selfish, fine..If that makes me a *baby Killer*, fine...I will say though that it's very easy to say what you would do, when it hasn't really happened to you.. I'm not saying you would make the same choice I did. I'm not saying you should make te choice I did. The thing is that what you did would be your choice and I don't believe anyone else can make that choice for you. Nor should they

 

[Ariel Mae]

I spoke to my rabbi who told me that jewish law REQUIRES abortion if the life of the mother is at stake..

Is that some kind of 'new' Jewish law? Because I've never heard of it before, and most of my family is Jewish...perhaps it's just never been spoken of in my family.

The thing is that what you did would be your choice and I don't believe anyone else can make that choice for you. Nor should they

So, this whole debate is rather null, then, isn't it? You have one side pushing for it to be illegal, and another pushing for it to be legal, both effecting other women.

 

[chobie]

you[/I] did!

His answers were, "I don't know." in relation to the 'tiebreaker' theory. Or did you somehow miss that?? (Btw, he's answered it....MANY times...)

I thought I was on ignore.

But anyway, I get what you are saying. There should be a conversation. The woman should take the man's feelings into consideration. The couple should try to reach a mutual decision. I agree with all that, as does just about everyone from what I can see from this thread.


That is how it should be, and it most situations is probably is that way. I just want to clarify that even though that is the way it should be, I don't see anyway to enforce that, nor do I think there should be any enforcement of it.

So do we finally agree here?

 

[Ariel Mae]

I thought I was on ignore.

But anyway, I get what you are saying. There should be a conversation. The woman should take the man's feelings into consideration. The couple should try to reach a mutual decision. I agree with all that, as does just about everyone from what I can see from this thread.

Okay, gotcha.

That is how it should be, and it most situations is probably is that way. I just want to clarify that even though that is the way it should be, I don't see anyway to enforce that, nor do I think there should be any enforcement of it.

So do we finally agree here?

Agreed.

 

[chobie]

To those of you who say you would have a baby at the isk of your own life, I tell this for you..I've told this before and actually went through this real time on the boards..

The thing is that what you did would be your choice and I don't believe anyone else can make that choice for you. Nor should they

It's so easy to say what one would do in a life/death situation, but unless one is in that situation, one has no way of predicting how they will react.

 

[Ariel Mae]

It's so easy to say what one would do in a life/death situation, but unless one is in that situation, one has no way of predicting how they will react.

Which is why I think DeclansDad has stated he didn't know what would happen in your tiebreaker situation.

 

[chobie]

Which is why I think DeclansDad has stated he didn't know what would happen in your tiebreaker situation.

I don't think that was what he was trying to say, nor do I think he was even contemplating for a second the situation Jenny was describing. If he could even fathom the idea that when the woman's life is in danger, not just potentially, that anyone other than her should make the final decision, than he is espousing an extreme view point.

But I think he was just talking about abortions when there is no reason to suspect that it won't be a normal pregnancy.

However, I still don't know what he means by he does not know what would happen when they don't agree: should the woman be able to legally make the decision or not? It's either one answer or the other.

 

[VSL]

So, this whole debate is rather null, then, isn't it? You have one side pushing for it to be illegal, and another pushing for it to be legal, both effecting other women.

Not really. Abortion being illegal affects women who want the option. Abortion being legal has no affect on those who would choose not to have it.

It's so easy to say what one would do in a life/death situation, but unless one is in that situation, one has no way of predicting how they will react.

 

[Ariel Mae]

Not really. Abortion being illegal affects women who want the option. Abortion being legal has no affect on those who would choose not to have it.

Well, it would still nullify the debate, as there would then only be one side, and that's more a conversation.

If he could even fathom the idea that when the woman's life is in danger, not just potentially, that anyone other than her should make the final decision, than he is espousing an extreme view point.

See, but in that situation, if both could make a decision, then that is how I think it should be. I'm not an advocate for 'it's always on the mother', but you know that.

But I think he was just talking about abortions when there is no reason to suspect that it won't be a normal pregnancy.

I don't know...we can't assume anything. It is only he who can clarify.

However, I still don't know what he means he does not know what would happen when they don't agree: should the woman be able to legally make the decision or not? It's either one answer or the other.

I think it means just that: He doesn't know. It's not that hard to grasp. "I don't know what would happen in that situation."

See, I don't agree with it being 'one or the other'. It's not a black and white issue to me. There's a whole lotta grey.

 

[chobie]

Well, it would still nullify the debate, as there would then only be one side, and that's more a conversation.

See, but in that situation, if both could make a decision, then that is how I think it should be. I'm not an advocate for 'it's always on the mother', but you know that.

I don't know...we can't assume anything. It is only he who can clarify.



I think it means just that: He doesn't know. It's not that hard to grasp. "I don't know what would happen in that situation."

See, I don't agree with it being 'one or the other'. It's not a black and white issue to me. There's a whole lotta grey.

When the mother is given a death sentence is she carries the baby to term, then it should not just be her decision? That is where I have to disagree with you.

It's black and white when it comes to the law. Either it should be the woman's decision or not. How can you have a grey law? Please draft one for me.


And I'm not assuming; hence the phrase "I think", rather than "I know."

 

[Ariel Mae]

When the mother is given a death sentence is she carries the baby term, then it should not just be her decision? That is where I have to disagree with you.

Well, disagree, then.

It's black and white when it comes to the law. Either it should be the woman's decision or not. How can you have a grey law? Please draft one for me.

How can you not have grey law? There's almost always grey in the law. Look at the drinking laws! The sex laws! They're not full out, "Don't Drink/Drink", etc. There's always an inbetween.

The same, here. State laws vary, on abortion. That's the problem. We may have a federally mandated law, but does that mean we follow it as a whole? Puh. Look at prohibition. It was up to the states. Segregation, too. Even with Plessy V Ferguson, the states still went their own ways. Same is going on here. That is the grey matter.

And I'm not assuming; hence the phrase "I think", rather than "I know."

True enough.

"Either it should be or it shouldn't".

Now That is an assertion of fact!

I disagree. I don't agree with it always being in the woman's hands. That's. Just. Me.

 

[LuvDuke]

It works fine as long as you are not the father who wanted the child. And why shouldn't things be discussed? If laws weren't discussed, we would all be living with many laws that we wouldn't agree with.

If a man wants a child that badly, he can go look for a willing partner instead of playing the birth control roulette with an unsuspecting partner.

Or, as you suggested, he can find a surrogate and pay for it.

 

[JennyMominRI]

Is that some kind of 'new' Jewish law? Because I've never heard of it before, and most of my family is Jewish...perhaps it's just never been spoken of in my family.



.

oh yes,,they invented and changed 5000 years of Jewish history just for me..

 

[LuvDuke]

Do people start these threads to puposefully get people to argue. Whatever the reason I can hardly resist sharing my views. I am pro choice as long as that choice is made BEFORE you get knocked up. I fully understand that there is no choice for rape victims and such (although I still do not think it is right) I do beleive your right for "Choice" ends when are stupid enough to have unprotected sex. I hate to hear of women using abortions as a form of birth control. It's ridiculous. You have a choice alright. You dont want a baby use birth control!!!!!

That goes for both partners.

 

[chobie]

Well, disagree, then.



How can you not have grey law? There's almost always grey in the law. Look at the drinking laws! The sex laws! They're not full out, "Don't Drink/Drink", etc. There's always an inbetween.

The same, here. State laws vary, on abortion. That's the problem. We may have a federally mandated law, but does that mean we follow it as a whole? Puh. Look at prohibition. It was up to the states. Segregation, too. Even with Plessy V Ferguson, the states still went their own ways. Same is going on here. That is the grey matter.



True enough.

So, how would you want a law about a man's say drafted? A man has a say in whether the woman he had relations with has an abortion or gives birth, but in the case where they cannot come to an agreement than no one has the final say?