a woman's right to choose.....

by peaceloveharmony 44 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  bigboi

  Kent:

  Lay off the Guiness dude! I also said we don't need any more abortion opposition. Actually, I think it should be treated like any other medical procedure. Women should at least have access to it becuase sometime's it's needed. However, ppl in this country need to be better informed about sex. If they were then there wouldn't be all the controversy over birth control and condoms. They both work damn good, save ppl a lot of heartache. You'd be surprised, by the opposiotion in this country to teach kids how to use these properly.
  The article Peace quoted said that most of the ppl seeking abortions were young couples trying to get out of a jam. So, I feel there is a need to change the perception of birth control in this country. It needs to stop being looked upon as a hassle and really start being promoted as the thing responsible ppl do. There's too much fear associated with sex in this country. More emphasis needs to be put on being responsible and more open about sex.

  ONE....

  bigboi

  "it ain't what ya do. it's how you do it" quote from the song "True Honeybunz" by Bahamadia
• 

  Yerusalyim

  Tina, I love ya and I respect ya, but we legislate morality all the time. Murder is illegal even when it's revenge for another murder. If a mother kills her baby after it's born, it's murder, if before it's not. Why the difference. The way the law is set up today, if a woman has a partial birth abortion it's ok, but if she's intending to give birth, and the doctor were to kill the baby on purpose, it's murder, strange concept.

  kent, you said

  as long as incest doesn't become a regular habit, not to bother.

  now, unless I'm mistaken, incest is RAPE unless it is consensual, then, it's just sick and perverted.

  later you said,

  What if the situation is a bit less than favourable? Maybe the woman has no job, nowhere to live, and no money. Should she have a child just to make some damned religious fanatics happy?

  , no, the option there is responsible sex, which sometimes means (don't say it) NO SEX. Part of the risk of sex is children, don't play the game if ya can't play the game. Further FULL ENFORCEMENT of child support would be a good idea too. I know I didn't get a DIME from my ex-wife.

  YERUSALYIM
  God is truth, and light his shadow.

  Plato
• 

  Tina

  Yeru,
  Thanks,I feel the same about you too :>
  I'll stand by my post. It's not a moral issue when you look at Roe vs Wade. I'll repeat it's focus is the woman's right to privacy. Those who want to take it beyond that are the moralists. And that just doesnt belong there. What I may view moral,you may not-that's why Roe vs Wade is written in the language it is. Nobodys morality is more important than the womans right to free choice and the privacy to make that choice. As we've seen in the capital punishment thread this applies here as well. Different defintions of moral,murder etc. Yours is no more right than mine,for instance. Cheers,T
• 

  JanH

  open_mind,

  Do you have experience then?

  
  Of course not. But I don't need that to leave the question open to free choice. You need arguments to restrict and force people to follow your opinions. I don't really need arguments to leave people the option to control their own bodies.
  

  What if you and your wife decided to have a child. She became pregnant. . . . . You don't feel you should have any say in this?

  A say, perhaps, but no competence to take the final decision. Personalizing the issue does not change my arguments above. An emotional issue needs more rational arguments and less emotional ones.
  

  Two people were involved in the decision to produce the child. Two people were involved in producing the child. Legally, two people would be responsible for the child, if born, for the next 17-18 years. Why then should one person (in this scenario) have the right to terminate the life of the child?

  I have already explained this above. Reiterating your questions do not change the answer. You want to institute laws saying that a man can legally control the body of a woman. That the fetus resides within her body, that she has to nourish it and go through the discomfort and plain, is exactly why the choice should be up to her, and nobody else.

  I suggest you try to deal with the arguments I outlined above if you want to continue the debate. Making a muddled debate even more emotional doesn't help. And merely restating your original assertions without dealing with my arguments above is not helpful, either.

  I totally agree with bigboi that better and more sex education will help. Availability of birth control for young people is certainly a key to lower the number of abortions. How come anti-abortionists are so often opposed to this, too? Obviously their agenda is to push their archaic idea that premarital sex is a sin at any price, no matter what the cost is in human suffering.

  - Jan
  --
  Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil´s Dictionary, 1911]
• 

  ianao

  --LOGIC ALERT-- --LOGIC ALERT-- --LOGIC ALERT--
  IF two partners both willingly did the nasty together, then two people were involved: One woman, one man. Both had 50% of "weight" in making the decision.

  The woman decided to knock boots with the man, and vicey-versie

  So, my take is that the man, who has (pardon the pun) invested some genes into the situation should have 15% weight vs. the woman's 85% weight in making a decision to abort, taking into account the fact that the woman does do the hard work of carrying/birthing and also undergoing the actual abortion procedure, etc.

  Tell me all you want about "it's not his body" or some other such bunk, but the child is a product of BOTH parents. The woman could have chosen NOT to have sex with her partner.

  Now, before anyone hops onto ianao's back and starts pounding, please note that I did NOT mention a case of RAPE/INCEST/etc. In this case, the choice is clearly 100% in weight of the child baring woman who is suffering because some diphead got a nut at her expense.

  -ianao
• 

  Yerusalyim

  Jan

  I gotta call you to task on this issue...

  Thus, the difference between pro-choice and anti-abortion is not about whether human life is worth preserving. It is a question about a crucial fact: Is a human first-trimester embryo a human being with human rights? Those who are pro-choice say, backed by scientific and ethical arguments, it is not.

  Sure, an embryo has the potential to become human, but so has a sperm or egg cell. Such an embryo has no capacity for thought, thinking, planning, feelings or pain. Its mother certainly has.

  There is just as much scientific evidence and ethical arguement on the Pro-Life side as there is on the Pro-Abortion side. FACT the first trimester embryo meets the scientific definition of "LIFE" If it's A LIFE then it is also HUMAN LIFE. That it can not survive outside the womb should be of little bearing, a baby OUTSIDE the womb can not survive on it's own. As to the feeling pain part, there is a LOT of science that says these poor babies do INDEED feel pain.
  Now if you would, please speak to Partial Birth Abortion and justify that if you can.

  YERUSALYIM
  God is truth, and light his shadow.

  Plato
• 

  Yerusalyim

  Jan,

  By the way, when ever I've went to PRO-LIFE rallies, etc the overwhelming VAST majority there are women.

  YERUSALYIM
  God is truth, and light his shadow.

  Plato
• 

  open_mind

  I totally agree with bigboi that better and more sex education will help. Availability of birth control for young people is certainly a key to lower the number of abortions. How come anti-abortionists are so often opposed to this, too? Obviously their agenda is to push their archaic idea that premarital sex is a sin at any price, no matter what the cost is in human suffering.

  I also totally agree with this statement. I have never said what my position is, or what my solution to the problem is.

  You want to institute laws saying that a man can legally control the body of a woman.

  Where did I say anything about making laws? I have no desire to institute laws regarding the control over anyones body, man or woman. I think that more laws is exactly what the abortion issue does not need. I believe a good start is with sex education. I disagree with making abortion illegal. is that going to solve the problen? No. It only compounds it. You will have women giving the procedure to themselves....not good. You will have illegal abortion clinics that will not be controlled by government health regulations....not good. These just lead to more pain for the woman. I appologize for my emotional pleas. I was in the scenario I listed above. Altough I was not married. This subject hits close to home. I do have experience to voice my opinion on this topic. But the same as everyone else, it is just an opinion. No matter how much we try to rationalize this topic, it is still very emotional for all involved.

  Do I think abortion should be legal........yes
  Do I think the final decision should reside with the woman.....yes
  Do I agree with abortion......no
  Do I feel we should have birth control readily available in schools...yes

  What could help this situation then...stronger marriages, more sex education, more abortion counseling, and lots of love.

  JanH....I have alot of respect for your viewpoint. I always enjoy reading your posts. If I have missed any responses to your arguments, please repost, and I will respond to them.
• 

  JanH

  Yeru,
  

  There is just as much scientific evidence and ethical arguement on the Pro-Life side as there is on the Pro-Abortion side.

  That is obviously not the case, since the anti-abortionists resort to all sorts of rhetorical ploys and are unable to come up with arguments. If you think there are good arguments, why not post them?

  Instead you have to use childish ploys like calling pro-choices "Pro-Abortion". Pro-choicers is the correct word, since most oppose abortion on the personal level; they just don't want the state or the religious right to dictate the issue. Pro-lifers are not. They oppose the woman's rights to control her own body and her own life.
  

  FACT the first trimester embryo meets the scientific definition of "LIFE"

  So does an earthworm. The scientific definition of "life" is pretty muddy, in fact, and does not lend itself well to ethics. Is an individual body cell life, too? With cloning techniques, it may one day become a full human? Is every body cell worthy fo human rights?
  

  If it's A LIFE then it is also HUMAN LIFE.

  
  This is just a game with words. Definitions do not change facts. Why do we apply a specific value to human beings as opposed to e.g. chimpanzees, who are about 99% similar to us genetically? This is quite a difficult question ethically, and one that should be addressed without slogans and word spinning.

  A person in a respirator who has had his brain totally destroyed is also human life. But most seems to agree that it is not necessary to preserve this life. Why? Becuase the mind is what essentially makes us what we are. If we can't plan, think, recognize fellow humans, etc, what is there to preserve?
  

  That it can not survive outside the womb should be of little bearing, a baby OUTSIDE the womb can not survive on it's own.

  Agree, it is pretty irrelevant. That it does in fact reside within another organism (the mother), is on the other hand of enormous importance.

  As to the feeling pain part, there is a LOT of science that says these poor babies do INDEED feel pain.

  A fetus is not a baby. Stop distorting the issue, Yeru. A first trimester fetus does not feel pain. Somewhere in the second trimester I will say the issue becomes far more complicated. But we're dealing with early fetuses here. Why does the religionists oppose the "day after pill" if their concern is the pain of the fetus?

  - Jan
  --
  Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil´s Dictionary, 1911]
• 

  JanH

  open_mind,

  We seem to totally agree. I seem to have taken your questions as expression of personal opinion. Sorry about that. I certainly agree that it will be a tragic situation for a man to experience that what he expected to become his child is taken away because a woman changed her mind. Yet, I am convinced that legally allowing her to make a choice that is unethical is the only way to go.

  I don't doubt that some women who choose to have an abortion (especially in places where it is cheap and easily available) have demonstrated bad judgment in not using birth control. That is not, as I see it, an argument for laws against abortion. Some people will behave irresponsibly. That is a sad fact of life.

  - Jan
  --
  Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil´s Dictionary, 1911]