Posted on 01/22/2003 8:00:21 AM PST by no other way out
Now I don't want to get off on a rant here, because basically tonight's topic is a minefield - Abortion. I couldn't be anymore on tiptoes if the show was being produced by George Balanchine. This is the Big Debate, and I'm talking bigger than who was the better Darren on Bewitched. Abortion is our nation's "Final Jeopardy," and I'll wager, Alex, that if our nation fights another Civil War, it will be about this. And I would remind you that this all from my perspective, the male perspective, a one-step-removed perspective, because I will obviously never have to decide on whether or not I should have an abortion. And by the way, my belief is that if men were the ones getting pregnant, abortions would be easier to get than food poisoning in Moscow. Having men decide the fate of a woman's reproductive system makes about as much sense as asking Quentin Crisp to coach the Raiders. All right, enough qualifying, let's get on with it. There's no doubt that passions run high on both sides, and this issue has created a divide in this country not seen since Carly Simon last yawned in public. The prevailing opinions on a woman's freedom to choose are going further to the right than a Greg Norman tee shot.
Pro-life activists attempt to paint anyone pro-choice as having no morals. On the other side of the ledger, pro-choicers are tagging pro-lifers as crazed and backward bible-thumpers bent on running the lives of the people who disagree with them. The truth, as always, is, the case of human endeavors lies somewhere in between. As much as the advance scouts on either side of this issue might not want to admit it, good people do get abortions and other good people are pained by their decision to get one.
Where do I stand? Well, I'm like most of you, I presume, I think there are far too many abortions performed in this country. And I also believe that at the end of the day, as much as I might disapprove, none of them are really any of my business. Look, there are always going to be arguments on this issue. The debate will rage until the end of time no matter what the whim of the Papal infallibility or the politics of the decade. But the simple truth is, that such a passionate and personal decision dictates that the choice be left to the individual. And you know, that's really all we can do, because we're just human beings, stumbling around in the dark, trying to get to the bathroom and kicking the shit out of our shins on the way there.
Now there's some things all right-minded human beings should agree on. We should all agree that abortions should be legal in the case of rape, incest and when the mother's life is at risk -- that's just common sense. But excluding that obvious assumption, everything else in the abortion arena is "in play." There are many quagmires complicating this issue. Religion. Now it seems that religion is most often the backboard for every bank shot put up by someone making it their business to get into your business. Roman Catholic doctrine forbids abortion. Fine. Take that into consideration when you make your decision. Right-to-life proponents contend that abortion is immoral. Fine. Take that into consideration when you make your decision. Another pothole on the road to a sensible resolution to abortion is "when does life begin?" At conception? When a heartbeat is detected? At the first drawn breath? You know, for me it wasn't until last Tuesday. Until then I was just a sperm with an accountant! Okay, so those are the variables, and there are obviously millions more variables that make each individual case unique. But the more you think about it, and the more it makes your head spin, and the more confused you get trying to figure out someone else's life for them, it becomes increasingly apparent that it has to be the call of the individual who is pregnant, because the collective, one way or another, won't have to suffer the consequences of that most personal of all decisions.
My fellow Americans, it is time to suck it up. Look deep into your immortal soul (if you believe you have one) and do the right thing. Have the courage and strength to live your own life, by your own standards, and stop trying to call the shots for everyone else. We all live with glaring inconsistencies, and sometimes, when you see something going on right in front of you that offends you to the very core of your being, sometimes the best thing you can do is walk away, because you know that's exactly what you would want them to do for you. There's only one judge on all this and that's God. And you don't get to meet him until you go backstage after the play is over. And believe me, you do not want to get a "thumbs down" from the guy who created thumbs, all right? In the interim, everybody has got to tend their own garden vis-a-vis abortion. And remember, when it comes to your body, only you wear the robes, and only you carry the gavel.
Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
What makes you a person, and what business is it of the government if I should choose to deprive you of that life?
Slyfox, you are absolutely right. When my wife conceived our third child she was in tears. Our older two were already 6 and 4 and her life as a full-time Mom was in order -- one in school, the other starting school in a year, lots of house projects to get underway, volunteering, women's groups, etc. This pregnancy was definitely problematic!
But we didn't abort! Little Abby came along 8 1/2 months later and she is the greatest blessing we know. Inconvenient? Heck yes! Plans put on hold? Sure! Have to rebuy baby stuff? You bet! Crimp in our middle-aged lifestyles? Darn straight! But she is beautiful and wonderful and now that she is 3 my wife cannot believe she ever felt that she didn't want her.
Of course, our evangelical Christian faith meant that abortion was never an alternative. But if we weren't Christians, or were neutral or "pro-choice," there is a strong likelihood we might have aborted this child.
An emotionally charged woman, unexpectedly pregnant, might make the abortion decision if no other information is provided -- about the sanctity of life, about the humanness of the fetus, about the post-abortion health risks, etc.
I would like to know if anyone has done the following two surveys
(1) Women who considered abortion, but didn't, and wish after birth that their child had been aborted.
(2) Women who considered abortion, and did, and now wish that they hadn't aborted the child.
My guess is that the statistics for hypothetical survey #1 would be 2% in favor and 98% opposed. My guess for #2 is highly speculative, but 50%-50% would not surprise me.
Is there any Freeper who works for a pro-life organization who can or will sponsor such a survey?
tom h
This is done all the time when the fetus is either dead or will die. D&C's are a prime example of artificially inducing miscarriages when the fetus has already died.
Well, yes. But beside the point. People have induced miscarriages all the time, electively, not when a fetus has died, but to kill the fetus.
This is artificial. This is elective. That miscarriage occurs naturally has no bearing on whether that makes it OK to induce it as a choice.
People have heart attacks naturally every day and die. Is it therefore OK to artificially induce heart attacks in people?
Not sure of your point here but unless there is a valid medical reason for inducing a heart attack (I beleive there is some procedure that does this in order to correct a problem) then no, it is not okay as it violates that persons right to life.
Can you really not see the point? Heart attacks occur naturally and kill a person. But that doesnt' mean another person can elect to induce a heart attack.
Likewise, miscarriages occur naturally and kill a person. But that doesn't mean another person can elect to induce a miscarriage.
SD
I'm a living, breathing, human being who by any definition of science and/or medicine is a "person"
and what business is it of the government if I should choose to deprive you of that life?
That pesky Declaration of Independence thing which states, "...that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Persuit of Happiness - That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."
That and the laws of man and civilization are such that there connot be a free society without the protection of these rights through law and the enforcement of those laws through government (police power, courts, etc.).
Well only 1 out of 2 people live beyond 75 years.
That's God's choice. But does it mean it's OK to kill the elderly?
You seem to grant and miss my point at the same time. I am saying that the debate about personhood is objectively over. Science has spoken, logic speaks, the facts speak. There is no point in the continuum of development from conception to death when it is anything other than a human being.
Dan
Same thing if my parents had decided to watch Johnny Carson that night instead of making whoopee.
A+.
This is only true if conception actually takes place. There are 2 types of IUDs, one is copper and the other progesterone releasing both of these act as spermicides, so IUDs while they do prevent implatation will also prevent conception.
Said the black man 150 years ago. The Court disagreed.
When you decide to give the gov't the power to seperate "personhood" from "humanity" you give it the power to kill the inconvenient. Blacks aren't people, Jews aren't people, fetuses aren't people.
SD
How does the IUD owner/user know which method was used to prevent a pregnancy?
SD
No as, again, it would be a violation of that person's right to life. As I said in a subsequent post, my point was that not "every" union of a sperm and an egg is a "person".
Is it universally accepted, scintific and medical fact that it is not?
What is the definition of a person? Can something be human and not be a person?
The pragmatic thing to do would be to err on the side of caution. As you argue, we do not know if a fetus is a "person." Why assume it is not?
If we assume it is, we in no way make ourselves murders. If we assume it is not, we may.
SD
The two greatest pro-abort weaknesses in my view:
1. No one would condone feeding crack to a fetus. But apparently it's OK to kill the fetus. One can only conclude that impaired life (out of the womb) is valued less than death. This is how crippled people are suing for pain and suffering for not being aborted. It's a sick, perverted situation for people to be arguing that someone is better off dead. I'm all for choice. For the fetus.
2. Only the most hardened feminist has the balls to argue that abortion is OK up till delivery. This is not a mainstream position whatsoever. This stance puts the lie to the validity of the 'woman's right to choose' argument.
The feminists are teetering on this one. They should be pubilcly forced take a position on late-term abortion. Support removes them from mainstream debate. Opposition is a de facto forfeit of their principle on the issue. The defense of life/individual principle then stands to take the argument.
The primary effect of IUDs is to prevent implantation.
Yes, I think the side with the mountains of dead bodies should bear the burden of proof.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.