an abortion thread with no personal attacks

[Valka D'Ur]

Well, you quoted oldschooler and went off on social safety nets and military adventurism. Since we're talking about abortion and you made no caveats other than pro-lifers are hypocritical I(perhaps incorrectly) took your post to focus on the financials of the situation facing the pregnant woman.

The stripping of social netting I agree with you on. It's a problem that faces low-income women who keep their children which impacts us all. If you point this out while proclaiming a pro-choice status what you are implying seems, at least to me, is that you believe the answer to this financial conundrum is to abort the pregnancy. I'm saying the financial argument there is bullcrap in the light of adoption being an option. I followed that point up in my next post by stating the health issues of pregnancy itself are not addressed by adoption. Does that shed some light on my answer to your subsequent question regarding ectopic pregnancies and cases of 10 year olds being raped?

If you're going to argue with me, how about you do on the basis of what I actually SAID, rather than what you SAY I said, 'k?

I think it's downright IMMORAL to spend money on killing people on the other side of the world (or anywhere) for no good reason and then say there isn't enough money to take care of one's OWN people. Yes, a lot of abortions happen because the women can't afford to raise the kid. But did you ever consider that they also can't afford to have the kid in the first place, even though the option to have it adopted also exists? Not all women HAVE access to proper pre-natal care. Not all women have the option to work through a pregnancy up until the time when maternity leave becomes necessary. Not all women can even afford to go to the damn hospital to HAVE the baby. Sometimes pre-natal screenings indicate a problem that means the baby would not survive (or would be born disabled or sick) unless the problem is corrected in utero - which costs money the woman simply doesn't have. Her only other choice then would be abortion.

But hey - gotta go kill somebody in Iraq, so screw the woman and her baby, right? And how many "pro-lifers" would step up and help her? Not too many that I've heard of. Would you?

And WHERE in any of my posts you've quoted have I typed the words "ectopic pregnancy"? Although I must admit that it makes me angrier than I can adequately express when I read about "pro-lifers" who say it's perfectly fine to let a woman in such a situation die (I guess they forgot that this means the baby also dies).

God's will?

BS and other bovine waste. Republicans' and fundamentalists' will, more like. And as I said - hypocrits' will.

 

[Farm Boy]

Sure. Fine. Let's talk past each other. It's productive. Pre-natal care expenses will still be covered by prospective adoptive parents. Obligatory face thingy.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Sure. Fine. Let's talk past each other. It's productive. Pre-natal care expenses will still be covered by prospective adoptive parents. Obligatory face thingy.

Only if there actually ARE adoptive parents in the offing. You honestly think that EVERY woman who decides to give up her baby has adoptive parents lined up and ready with a chequebook?

You're the one who's doing the "talking past" because you INSIST on putting words on my keyboard that I never typed. You're just miffed because I don't agree with you.

 

[Farm Boy]

Only if there actually ARE adoptive parents in the offing. You honestly think that EVERY woman who decides to give up her baby has adoptive parents lined up and ready with a chequebook?

Yes, in fact I do. At least if we are talking about your country, or mine, or Western/Central Europe. There are massive queues of adoptive parents, as the movie Juno would have put it, "desperately seeking spawn." Just because you may not have had any reason to look into it doesn't mean they aren't there.

What I'm making here is a very limited point: the financial hardship argument for being pro-choice is not reflected in reality. I am also saying there are plenty of reasons to actually be pro-choice. I even fed you a couple of them. I agree with you there.

Sure. Perhaps I'm annoyed you aren't agreeing with me. But seriously here are you actually saying it's preferable to abort a pregnancy than adopt it out? Where on earth does the USA's failed wars come into this particular issue? Are we actually more interested in ideological bandstanding than attempting to find the best course for pregnant women, those who want to parent, and the possible resultant children?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Why should a woman with an unwanted fertilized egg be forced to bring it to term when there was a far more attractive option?

Again, line up those unused ovaries of those willing recipients and let's transfer it right over. I bet many women would find that to be an attractive alternative if they didn't have access to morning-after pills or found out too late.

 

[timtofly]

Why should a woman with an unwanted fertilized egg be forced to bring it to term when there was a far more attractive option?

Again, line up those unused ovaries of those willing recipients and let's transfer it right over. I bet many women would find that to be an attractive alternative if they didn't have access to morning-after pills or found out too late.

There is one slight problem though. Sometimes the ones desiring children cannot carry an "egg" to term. That would mean that a third party would have to step up and perforn the honors. We are trying to simplify it, not complicate it any more than it needs to be. Although maybe the government could invest in that industry instead of one that just harvested eggs. There might be women out there who would carry it for the money and give up "fun" for nine months to do so. Heck maybe even some men would go for that one, if it were possible.

It is a shame that those who do not want children are constantly producing them, and those who do, cannot.

 

[Farm Boy]

He's already ignored that particular fact tim, move along, move along. Plus I'm not sure where he's getting "forced" from if he's responding to me.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Yes, in fact I do. At least if we are talking about your country, or mine, or Western/Central Europe. There are massive queues of adoptive parents, as the movie Juno would have put it, "desperately seeking spawn." Just because you may not have had any reason to look into it doesn't mean they aren't there.

I never saw the movie Juno, or even heard of it, so I don't get the reference. I'm aware that there are a great many adoptive parents who really want a kid. Problem is, so many of them want a baby and they aren't interested in the older kids. It's like too many pet adoptions fall through because the animal is no longer little and cute, but an adult. Personally, if I was ever to adopt a human child, I'd want one past the stage of baby-babble and already housebroken.

So let's say there's a woman who lives out in some rural place in the middle of nowhere. She gets raped by some guy (family member or stranger, doesn't matter). She has little/no money of her own, no way to travel. Where are the hordes and massive queues of adoptive parents to look after her and the fetus?

It would be wonderful if every kid was wanted, and every baby would either be kept or adopted out. But that's not the reality of this world. And it's a FACT that many babies will simply not survive due to biological/medical issues beyond ANYBODY's control. Women have GOT to have the choice to abort - even if they were richer than Bill Gates' wife, there is NO amount of money that will magically cure these fetuses, and I do hope you're not going to tell me that there are people willing to adopt a baby that will be born DEAD...

Sure. Perhaps I'm annoyed you aren't agreeing with me. But seriously here are you actually saying it's preferable to abort a pregnancy than adopt it out? Where on earth does the USA's failed wars come into this particular issue? Are we actually more interested in ideological bandstanding than attempting to find the best course for pregnant women, those who want to parent, and the possible resultant children?

It's quite simple. If the US would stop throwing money at a war it CANNOT win and instead put the money toward helping its OWN people - INCLUDING women with pregnancy issues, instead of allowing the states to pass increasingly insanely draconian laws - that would be a tremendous INVESTMENT in your own country.

You see these as two unconnected issues. I see them as part of the same overall problem.

 

[Farm Boy]

Well everything is connected if you care to look at the big picture. Problem is, it isn't terribly useful if you are trying to have a conversation related to a specific thread.

Since we're dealing specifically with abortion and adoption as it related to it, yes, most people want a baby. That is fine for purposes of this conversation. You don't get to have a kid and then "abort" it by terminating its life after birth. Not particularly relevant to the point I'm making.

Rural girl, where are the hordes of adoptive parents? A phone call or email to an agency away. I'm assuming if she has access to an abortion clinic she has access to the resources to find an agency. And yes, they'll pay to drive her to a clinic. Once you are already paying for licensing and lawyers, the transportation issue and even rent and living expenses are chump change.

 

[caketastydelish]

Yes, but you're like 97% anti-choice, so the sort of anti-loooking-like-a-dick precautions that you're going to be taking are all going to be pretty one-sided. Just because 97% anti-choice appears moderate in the twisted landscape of what passes for politics in the US doesn't mean that it is an authentically moderate position, just that on this, as in so many other areas,

Considering that there's plenty of underage pregnancies, as well as rapes, and births that could be dangerous to either the mother or the baby, I doubt it be only 3% of the abortions that I would support. And in either case, this is far from the "mainstream anti-choice" attitude that so many american have. As I've stated before, it is one thing to oppose abortion is certain cases but then make sure the mother will have all the resources the government can possibly provide. It is another to not provide the mother with the most basic needs, as they have been doing so far. You are trying to compare me with an average right-wing American, which I am far from.

In fact, while this may stray slightly off from abortion, I will say it anyway: My main problem with the quote unquote, "Obamacare" health bill is that it's not left wing enough. He has made too many compromises with republicans in that bill.

I also have a feeling by "other areas" you are mainly referring to Europe. Europeans have a tendency to compare Americans to themselves, but pretty much no other part of the world. For example, does Saudi Arabia and Iran allow abortions? I would like to know. Of course I know India allow abortions for the purpose of "getting rid" of their girls, but that seems a bit different.

My point is, how come the only standard Americans can possibly be held to is the European one?

Americans skew hard towards the 18th century.

I have never heard before that abortion existed in the 18th century. Can you please provide a link of your source?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Well everything is connected if you care to look at the big picture. Problem is, it isn't terribly useful if you are trying to have a conversation related to a specific thread.

It is when you're trying to make a point that the other person isn't willing to concede exists.

Since we're dealing specifically with abortion and adoption as it related to it, yes, most people want a baby. That is fine for purposes of this conversation. You don't get to have a kid and then "abort" it by terminating its life after birth. Not particularly relevant to the point I'm making.

You persist in saying I said things I never said. When did I mention aborting a kid after it was born?

Rural girl, where are the hordes of adoptive parents? A phone call or email to an agency away. I'm assuming if she has access to an abortion clinic she has access to the resources to find an agency. And yes, they'll pay to drive her to a clinic. Once you are already paying for licensing and lawyers, the transportation issue and even rent and living expenses are chump change.

Let's use the Canadian concept of rural, instead of the American concept. How about a Native girl who lives in some isolated part of the Northwest Territories or Nunavut, where there may or may not be internet, may or may not be phone service, or even electricity or running water? (yes, there are parts of Canada that primitive) And don't even consider "driving" her to a clinic, because there aren't even any damn ROADS, at least for part of the year. Yes, there are areas of Canada so remote that they can't be driven to unless it's during the part of the year when the local lake system has frozen over hard and deep enough to take the weight of vehicles, passengers, and cargo. Otherwise, you use small airplanes, snowmobiles, and your own two feet. Some areas still use dog sleds, as well. Still gonna tell me about the hordes of adoptive parents?

 

[sophie]

I have never heard before that abortion existed in the 18th century. Can you please provide a link of your source?

Abortions have existed as long as there have been babies. Not really the point he was making though.

 

[Formaldehyde]

There is one slight problem though. Sometimes the ones desiring children cannot carry an "egg" to term. That would mean that a third party would have to step up and perforn the honors. We are trying to simplify it, not complicate it any more than it needs to be. Although maybe the government could invest in that industry instead of one that just harvested eggs. There might be women out there who would carry it for the money and give up "fun" for nine months to do so. Heck maybe even some men would go for that one, if it were possible.

It is a shame that those who do not want children are constantly producing them, and those who do, cannot.

Actually, that is no real problem with most women who cannot get pregnant normally as I already pointed out previously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo_transfer

This procedure can typically be used as long as the recipient woman has a uterus. It has been successfully used with many women who are barren. It is why it was developed in the first place.

What I think is the "shame" is trying to force women to bring unwanted fetuses to term.

He's already ignored that particular fact tim, move along, move along. Plus I'm not sure where he's getting "forced" from if he's responding to me.

I guess you forgot your previous comment after I pointed out that 47,000 women have successfully used this procedure the first time:

That's cool. Now to get insurance to cover it so it's feasible.

So now you want insurance to cover it as well? Whatever happened to all the couples who would gladly pay all expenses until adulthood? The fee for this transfer would be minuscule by comparison. Do you want insurance to pay for abortions as well?

And isn't your position that abortions should be banned? Or is all this just your own personal opinion which you would never want to force on others? Your posts seem rather strident if you are merely expressing your personal preference in this matter.

 

[Arakhor]

My point is, how come the only standard Americans can possibly be held to is the European one?

Traditionally, one is held to the standards of one's peers. The Middle East, SE Asia and Africa are not normally considered to be the cultural peers of either Europe or the United States.

 

[Traitorfish]

Considering that there's plenty of underage pregnancies, as well as rapes, and births that could be dangerous to either the mother or the baby, I doubt it be only 3% of the abortions that I would support. And in either case, this is far from the "mainstream anti-choice" attitude that so many american have. As I've stated before, it is one thing to oppose abortion is certain cases but then make sure the mother will have all the resources the government can possibly provide. It is another to not provide the mother with the most basic needs, as they have been doing so far. You are trying to compare me with an average right-wing American, which I am far from.

In fact, while this may stray slightly off from abortion, I will say it anyway: My main problem with the quote unquote, "Obamacare" health bill is that it's not left wing enough. He has made too many compromises with republicans in that bill.

Y'know, when I suggest that your concession to choice might owe more to image than ethics, and you respond by waving around your (frankly meagre) liberal wing credentials, you're kind of just proving my point.

I also have a feeling by "other areas" you are mainly referring to Europe. Europeans have a tendency to compare Americans to themselves, but pretty much no other part of the world. For example, does Saudi Arabia and Iran allow abortions? I would like to know. Of course I know India allow abortions for the purpose of "getting rid" of their girls, but that seems a bit different.

My point is, how come the only standard Americans can possibly be held to is the European one?

I meant "areas" as in "areas of policy". I've no idea how you interpreted as referring to geographical areas.

I have never heard before that abortion existed in the 18th century. Can you please provide a link of your source?

Mate, abortion has existed since forever. They were already arguing about its morality in before the calendar ticked over into positive.

 

[El_Machinae]

I like the idea of gov't support of pregnant women (since maternal health is really quite important for offspring health), but I wonder if the problem of 'welfare mothers' might become an actual social issue. I cannot see the racist pro-lifers being satisfied for very long with this compromise. If the compromise is used to in introduce legislation that makes abortions harder to do, then there really might be a bait and switch, where the comprise comes with legislation and then the compromise is taken away.

 

[Cutlass]

Does anyone know how much of a difference there is between prospective adopters of white babies and non-white babies?

 

[Formaldehyde]

One thing is for certain. Prior to abortion and effective birth control, there were far more unwanted babies than there were people willing to adopt them. And if abortion was made illegal tomorrow, I seriously doubt there would be enough willing adoptees to not bring back numerous orphanages again.

I think a far better compromise is for all those pro-lifers to step forward and "save" all these unwanted embryos by having them transferred into their own uteri. If that means they cannot bear their own children due to already having too many others to properly financially support, so be it. After all, they are preventing "murder" by actually taking a proactive role.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I think a far better compromise is for all those pro-lifers to step forward and "save" all these unwanted embryos by having them transferred into their own uteri. If that means they cannot bear their own children due to already having too many others to properly financially support, so be it. After all, they are preventing "murder" by actually taking a proactive role.

I fully agree with you, except for one point: Some of the loudest and most insistent pro-lifers don't HAVE a uterus, because they are MALE. What would you propose for them to put their money and energies where their mouths are?

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

I fully agree with you, except for one point: Some of the loudest and most insistent pro-lifers don't HAVE a uterus, because they are MALE. What would you propose for them to put their money and energies where their mouths are?

Gender reassignment surgery.