Yet Another Abortion Debate Thread

[bhsup]

@Lucy: Basically there are two things you're addressing with me, I think. 1) the life of the mother if she is at great risk of dying without an abortion, and 2) a safety net for those who find themselves pregnant and lacking resources. Yes? I'm just gonna go without quoting any of your previous stuff and I'll just personally reference it as I post here. If I miss anything or get anything wrong, feel free to bludgeon me and demand clarification

1) I read your post a couple of hours ago, actually, and was going through hypothetical scenarios in my head to try to use to explain my view better. Suddenly something crossed my mind that I had never, ever even considered before. What if I was the baby? I normally don't like situations where I am put in a hypothetical because you should be able to make a detatched opinion. But I couldn't get away from thinking about it. So, what if I was the baby, and take it further and assume I was able to think about this and voice my opinion? I would want to save my mom, no ifs ands or buts. I'm the one killing her, even though it is through no willful action of mine, it's still me existing that is causing this.

I'm really not sure what to say here other than this hit me like a cannonball upside my head and I'm still trying to sort through this. I don't know what to think beyond "I'd save my mom." So I guess I'm doing a 180 here and saying I wouldn't necessarily oppose abortion if the mother's life is at stake. Hope that doesn't make me a hypocrite.

2) I still maintain that this should be a totally separate argument from whether abortion should be legal or not. The two really have nothing to do with one another. But that aside, I'll give you my views on it. I am not in any way opposed to social programs, assistance, whatever for pregnant moms who need help. I support said programs wholeheartedly. I'd even support Planned Parenthood if they would break into two organizations, one for family planning that was Planned Parenthood and had nothing to do with abortions, and one called something else strictly for abortions. That way we could publicly fund one and not the other and if the other one expected to survive it would have to rely on private donations.

And I'm not opposed to sex education in schools necessarily, depending on how it is handled ( I'd prefer in 6th grade to start out telling all girls that all boys are evil and if they try to kiss you, you should kick them in the nuts and run away. That's not gonna fly, though, I know this.) But I do draw the line at handing out condoms or birth control at school. I don't accept the "kids are gonna do it no matter what" mantra that so many people chant. Maybe they will, maybe they won't, but we shouldn't encourage it or even give a nod to acceptance either at that age. If they still choose to engage in sex, then that needs to be on their head and they have to accept the responsibility that comes with their actions.

Eh, I'm starting to ramble-type so I'll stop. Ask for followup if needed.

* I am going to bypass my whole "only at the state level because the feds are not authorized" thing that I do simply to avoid over-complicating this.

 

[History_Buff]

But I do draw the line at handing out condoms or birth control at school. I don't accept the "kids are gonna do it no matter what" mantra that so many people chant. Maybe they will, maybe they won't, but we shouldn't encourage it or even give a nod to acceptance either at that age. If they still choose to engage in sex, then that needs to be on their head and they have to accept the responsibility that comes with their actions.

But you're still on the 'handing out condoms equals acceptance or encouragement' kick, which I don't think makes too much sense. Is buying a child car insurance encouraging a kid to crash his car? Is giving a child free health insurance encouraging it to leap through a plate glass window?

It's just acknowledging that these things do happen, and taking appropriate measures to reduce risk. You can say that you don't buy it, but I don't think you could find a single highschool in America where at least one kid isn't sexually active.

 

[Farm Boy]

Likely not middle school either.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

1) I read your post a couple of hours ago, actually, and was going through hypothetical scenarios in my head to try to use to explain my view better. Suddenly something crossed my mind that I had never, ever even considered before. What if I was the baby? I normally don't like situations where I am put in a hypothetical because you should be able to make a detatched opinion. But I couldn't get away from thinking about it. So, what if I was the baby, and take it further and assume I was able to think about this and voice my opinion? I would want to save my mom, no ifs ands or buts. I'm the one killing her, even though it is through no willful action of mine, it's still me existing that is causing this.

I'm really not sure what to say here other than this hit me like a cannonball upside my head and I'm still trying to sort through this. I don't know what to think beyond "I'd save my mom." So I guess I'm doing a 180 here and saying I wouldn't necessarily oppose abortion if the mother's life is at stake. Hope that doesn't make me a hypocrite.

Star Trek: The Next Generation addressed this issue in a 2nd-season episode entitled "The Child." Short synopsis: An alien entity wanted to understand what it was like to be human. This was an energy-being, non-corporeal in its natural state. It decided the best way to satisfy its curiosity was to be born as a human and live as a human, in order to understand humans.

So the entity made Deanna Troi pregnant. As soon as her pregnancy became known to the senior crew, there were immediately all kinds of reactions - jealousy from Riker ("I don't mean to be indelicate - but WHO'S THE FATHER?!!!") to Worf's immediate conclusion that THIS IS A THREAT - KILL IT! and a debate of whether the Captain would allow Deanna to have the baby. Deanna herself stated emphatically that Worf could take whatever measures he deemed necessary to the safety of the ship - but she said, "...but know this: I *AM* HAVING THIS BABY."

So she had the baby (the pregnancy happened really fast - in about 3 days, or so), and the child grew equally fast. It was a little boy, and he was impressively smart and courteous to everyone, and extremely eager to learn. Deanna felt fulfilled as a mother, and her child obviously loved her.

However... the crew soon started having problems, and the entity-in-a-human-child's-body figured out that its natural energy was incompatible with coexistence with humans. What followed was one of the most heartbreaking scenes ever filmed in any Star Trek episode - where Ian Andrew Troi (the name Deanna gave the child) told her that he was the cause of the crew's illness and that in order to save them (and her), he had to die.

So there you have Star Trek tackling abortion, right to life, and a child/alien sacrificing himself for his mother's life.

2) I still maintain that this should be a totally separate argument from whether abortion should be legal or not. The two really have nothing to do with one another. But that aside, I'll give you my views on it. I am not in any way opposed to social programs, assistance, whatever for pregnant moms who need help. I support said programs wholeheartedly. I'd even support Planned Parenthood if they would break into two organizations, one for family planning that was Planned Parenthood and had nothing to do with abortions, and one called something else strictly for abortions. That way we could publicly fund one and not the other and if the other one expected to survive it would have to rely on private donations.

It's not only that women need the help during their pregnancy - they need help afterward, too. It's the "afterward" that is often so hypocritical on the part of pro-lifers. They care a great deal for a pre-birth baby. But after the baby is physically separate from the mother, many of these "pro-life" individuals want to withdraw the support these women need to provide for their new babies - and then blame the woman for her own situation, when she might have preferred not to be in the situation in the first place.

And I'm not opposed to sex education in schools necessarily, depending on how it is handled ( I'd prefer in 6th grade to start out telling all girls that all boys are evil and if they try to kiss you, you should kick them in the nuts and run away. That's not gonna fly, though, I know this.) But I do draw the line at handing out condoms or birth control at school. I don't accept the "kids are gonna do it no matter what" mantra that so many people chant. Maybe they will, maybe they won't, but we shouldn't encourage it or even give a nod to acceptance either at that age. If they still choose to engage in sex, then that needs to be on their head and they have to accept the responsibility that comes with their actions.

This is a long-winded way of saying that you don't approve of explaining basic human biology to kids at the age when they absolutely need to know about it - BEFORE they end up in a situation where they may not be able to make the right decision as fast as they need to make it, or where the situation is downright dangerous and they simply have no way of enforcing a "NO!".

 

[Farm Boy]

It's not only that women need the help during their pregnancy - they need help afterward, too. It's the "afterward" that is often so hypocritical on the part of pro-lifers. They care a great deal for a pre-birth baby. But after the baby is physically separate from the mother, many of these "pro-life" individuals want to withdraw the support these women need to provide for their new babies - and then blame the woman for her own situation, when she might have preferred not to be in the situation in the first place.

I agree with you here, for the record. But how do you reconcile this with the ready availability of a pro-life option that negates this financial conundrum while protecting life?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I agree with you here, for the record. But how do you reconcile this with the ready availability of a pro-life option that negates this financial conundrum while protecting life?

Not to jump in and put words in anothers mouth...

But a problem with adoption (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that it isn't easy enough for the parties involved in most cases.

And it largely doesn't solve the problem of young mothers who are determined to keep their babies against their own and the babies best interest (cases where the mother is very young, financially insecure, has emotional/substance issues [not attacking single moms, just making a point that it isn't always best for a mother to keep a child]). Those mothers need additional help, and it should arguably come from the government. But that's a problem - the conservatives in the US generally oppose the kinds of welfare programs this entails.

And all of this goes on outside of the current adoption system.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I don't accept the "kids are gonna do it no matter what" mantra that so many people chant. Maybe they will, maybe they won't, but we shouldn't encourage it or even give a nod to acceptance either at that age. If they still choose to engage in sex, then that needs to be on their head and they have to accept the responsibility that comes with their actions.

1. Kids have sex. That's not a mantra, that's fact. Not "maybe they will", "they will". Why won't you accept kids have sex? Aren't teenage pregnancies pretty conclusive proof they do? Or is the secret in your statement in the "no matter what?" part. Do you have any way to prevent kids to have sex?

2. Giving kids condoms doesn't encourage them to have sex, the raging hormones in their bodies and them discovering their sexuality does.

3. So lets teach kids to take responsibility for their actions by providing the knowledge and means for them to behave responsible.

I bet it'll work a lot better than denying kids have sex, and when they do (which is odd after claiming they don't) and become pregnant, shrugging and say: your problem, that's your lives, deal with it.

 

[Farm Boy]

Not to jump in and put words in anothers mouth...

But a problem with adoption (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that it isn't easy enough for the parties involved in most cases.

And it largely doesn't solve the problem of young mothers who are determined to keep their babies against their own and the babies best interest (cases where the mother is very young, financially insecure, has emotional/substance issues [not attacking single moms, just making a point that it isn't always best for a mother to keep a child]). Those mothers need additional help, and it should arguably come from the government. But that's a problem - the conservatives in the US generally oppose the kinds of welfare programs this entails.

And all of this goes on outside of the current adoption system.

If a mother is determined to keep her baby that's fine(and possibly the best solution), and social nets become the discussion. This isn't a situation that lines up neatly with abortion tho - she's determined to keep the child. About the only way this situation lines up with termination of pregnancy is if you want to proactively encourage such termination along socioeconomic lines. But I don't think anyone around here has been too keen on advocating that(thank goodness).

Adoption is difficult. It's difficult for birth and adoptive parents in different ways though. I would say difficulty would be a functional bar if the party that needs to jump through the most regulatory hoops(seeking to adopt) was the party in shorter supply. It's not. I don't really know how to make the process any simpler for birth mothers though. It's hard for emotional reasons. If you really want to simplify the process down as far as it can go, a new mother can drop an infant off at fire departments, police departments, and a variety of other locations no questions asked. That isn't the way it's normally done and it wouldn't maximize the level of assistance available but that's about as low frills as you can get. If you want a more hands on approach you can poke around here and form your own assessment. This might be a more typical place for a birth mother to start if she's using web-based resources.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Adoption is difficult. It's difficult for birth and adoptive parents in different ways though. I would say difficulty would be a functional bar if the party that needs to jump through the most regulatory hoops(seeking to adopt) was the party in shorter supply. It's not. I don't really know how to make the process any simpler for birth mothers though. It's hard for emotional reasons. If you really want to simplify the process down as far as it can go, a new mother can drop an infant off at fire departments, police departments, and a variety of other locations no questions asked. That isn't the way it's normally done and it wouldn't maximize the level of assistance available but that's about as low frills as you can get. If you want a more hands on approach you can poke around here and form your own assessment. This might be a more typical place for a birth mother to start if she's using web-based resources.

Yeah, it's tricky because you do want adoptive parents to be fit, and that requires an evaluation. But at the same time, we have parents going overseas to adopt children, and they claim it's because it's easier. I don't know enough about the situation to determine if that's true or not, but if it is, then that's a shame. (thanks for the link, I'll check it out)

And I agree with you on the emotional difficulty for birth mothers.

And I don't want a society where moms drop off their babies at police stations routinely or use abortion as birth control. But to get there, we need stronger assistance for mothers and young families (my wife and I would get more assistance from the state if we not married and had a child than we would if we had one now - and the financial situation would be the same in either case). We also need better sex education and access to birth control.

Unfortunately, those things are railed against by the political right, which makes abortion an unfortunate reality. And I also believe that outright outlawing abortion will lead to some truly horrific circumstances. It doesn't stop because it's illegal. My grandmother was a nurse her entire adult life and has shared with me many horror stories of at-home abortions.

 

[Farm Boy]

Both sides are pretty bad at this all told.