|
Post by iamjumbo on Apr 5, 2011 14:33:00 GMT
I find it difficult to actually debate this. On the one hand, as a mother and a grandmother, to me, the idea of aborting a baby is dreadful. On the other hand, I also feel that it's every woman's choice. She's the one who's body is taken over for 9 months and who has to give birth. And you can bet that she'll be the one who'll have to cope with raising the child - not the pro-lifers standing holding the placards. I made that choice, Everso, and I've spent the last ten years raising a son with a number of problems as a result. Genetically there's no difference between a foetus and a fully grown baby and I can't see any MORAL difference between abortion and infanticide. I know I'm fairly liberal on most issues but on this one I take the view that abortion should be a last resort. If the mother's life is in danger I support it. If the baby was conceived as a result of rape or incest I support her making that choice (though I've known one other victim of rape who DID choose to raise the child and has never regretted it). Other than that I feel it should be illegal. I'm particularly opposed to those women who use it as a lazy alternative to contraception. We have women who've had six, seven or eight abortions on the NHS and it's a shameful waste of resources. That doesn't mean I condemn most women who have abortions because in most cases they are NOT like that - heartless, self-indulgent and uncaring as the repeat offenders are. (God, I wish I was one-dimensional sometimes; it makes life so much easier when you are!) you are totally correct of course, BUT, the problem with this is that it cannot pass the moral muster. abortion is either killing an innocent life, or it is not. there is no in between. that means that it is one or the other in EVERY case, without exception. of course, those who repeatedly use abortion for birth control are so inherently worthless as a human so as to not factor into the equation at all
|
|
|
Post by firedancer on Apr 5, 2011 14:42:03 GMT
I am not sure how helpful it is to drag 'god' into this. If one believes in an all powerful almighty then one has to accept the fact that with 1 pregnancy in 4 ending in abortion (or miscarriage to use the lay term) god is the biggest abortionist of the lot. And who does he explain his actions to?
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Apr 5, 2011 14:42:31 GMT
We should not forget also that nature is the biggest abortionist of all. One in 4 pregnancies ends in abortion (or miscarriage if you prefer the lay term) without the woman doing anything at all, thus dwarfing the number of chosen abortions. I object to the term 'pro choice' being construed by pro-life supporters as anti-life. I am pro-choice. I had a pregnancy that was the result of contraceptive failure. Because I was married and it was simply not planned for that time rather than not wanted we did not opt for abortion. Pro choice means just that - choice. It does not necessarily mean abortion. My daughter is pro-choice. She knew when she was pregnant because of scans that there was a strong chance her baby would be disabled. It was, and her life has been wrecked because of her choice. But it was her choice and she made it and all of our family supported her, even though it would not have been the choice I would have made. We all have to make difficult decisions in life and I do not think politicians are the ones to which we should hand over control of women's bodies. In fact, it sickens me to think that might be the case. As I said, principles are easy when you are unlikely to be challenged to uphold them. obviously, her decision cost her many experiences that she might otherwise have had, and undoubtedly gave her just as many that she would rather not have had. the bottom line though, has to be, is having the kid now, now matter what the hardship, worth it to her? is SHE happy that she has the child? nothing else really matters
|
|
|
Post by firedancer on Apr 5, 2011 15:01:45 GMT
Which is why all the famiiy have supported her, because it was her and her partner's decision and no one else's. As I said before it would be wrong to go into details but 'happy' is far too shallow and inadequate a word to use. And any word that you (by 'you' I mean 'one') used to describe whether you were 'happy' for the decision as it affected you might not be appropriate word to use to describe your decision as it affected your child. Life, decisions and the emotions produced in these situations are a little more complicated than how a person feels about herself. As the saying goes "it isn't all about you".
|
|
|
Post by sadie1263 on Apr 5, 2011 15:35:05 GMT
I have a few friends that have had abortions. Two of them....it was the best choice for them. There was no way they were in a position to have a child. One of them I would not have let raise a potted plant.......much less a child. The other one.....the boyfriend pretty much forced the issue......they later married and I think they both live with the regret. I don't know. I think it is only something that person can answer, both morally and emotionally.
|
|
|
Post by everso on Apr 5, 2011 16:41:41 GMT
I have a few friends that have had abortions. Two of them....it was the best choice for them. There was no way they were in a position to have a child. One of them I would not have let raise a potted plant.......much less a child. The other one.....the boyfriend pretty much forced the issue...... they later married and I think they both live with the regret. I don't know. I think it is only something that person can answer, both morally and emotionally. They most certainly would do if they've had any children since marrying. They would look at their children and think about the one they got rid of. Horrible thought - I feel very sorry for them.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2011 18:40:11 GMT
Oddly enough, I was thinking just the opposite, that they would be more likely to regret the abortion if they didn't have any.
But on reflection that probably isn't true, unless they couldn't have any because of the abortion. After all, childless couples don't tend to go around wishing they hadn't put on a condom when they were curting.
|
|
|
Post by everso on Apr 6, 2011 0:52:45 GMT
Oddly enough, I was thinking just the opposite, that they would be more likely to regret the abortion if they didn't have any. But on reflection that probably isn't true, unless they couldn't have any because of the abortion. After all, childless couples don't tend to go around wishing they hadn't put on a condom when they were curting. I think once you have children you do see abortion in a different light. They are real people once they're there in front of you, rather than the imaginary something they were before pregnancy. For instance, not being able to get pregnant must be heart-breaking for a woman who desperately wants children, but to have had a child and lost it, and then be unable to have another would be far worse imo. In other words, you then KNOW what you're missing.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Apr 6, 2011 1:16:05 GMT
I think once you have children you do see abortion in a different light. They are real people once they're there in front of you, rather than the imaginary something they were before pregnancy. Everso hits the nail on the head with this post. That's the long of it, that's the short of it, that's it!
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Apr 6, 2011 14:16:56 GMT
I am not sure how helpful it is to drag 'god' into this. If one believes in an all powerful almighty then one has to accept the fact that with 1 pregnancy in 4 ending in abortion (or miscarriage to use the lay term) god is the biggest abortionist of the lot. And who does he explain his actions to? when there is no one, or no thing, more powerful than you, you don't explain shyt to anyone. the point is that it is not the province of another human to dictate whether or not a woman is wrong. i have the right to tell you that i think abortion is wrong, but i don't have the right to deny you an abortion if that is the choice you are determined to make, except those who repeatedly use it for birth control
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Apr 6, 2011 14:20:25 GMT
Which is why all the famiiy have supported her, because it was her and her partner's decision and no one else's. As I said before it would be wrong to go into details but 'happy' is far too shallow and inadequate a word to use. And any word that you (by 'you' I mean 'one') used to describe whether you were 'happy' for the decision as it affected you might not be appropriate word to use to describe your decision as it affected your child. Life, decisions and the emotions produced in these situations are a little more complicated than how a person feels about herself. As the saying goes "it isn't all about you". i understand what you're saying, but, regardless of how handicapped the child is, if it were given the choice, would it choose to be alive? i guess that we'll go with that as the bottom line
|
|
|
Post by firedancer on Apr 6, 2011 15:55:45 GMT
And I understand where you are coming from too Jumbo, and in principle, don't disagree. Two caveats: 1) you are presuming that the child is not so handicapped that it does not have the capacity to choose and 2) it is of lesser importance that when a family has a severely - and I mean severely - handicapped child, the entire family is then handicapped, which of course means putting their well-being below that of the nominally handicapped one.
This is why, in my personal opinion, being pro-choice (which means you can choose to abort or not to abort) is actually the more ethical stance than the pro-life stance, where I for one find myself asking "Pro-life, but pro whose life?"
My family's experience has underlined that, unless someone is totally devoid of empathy, foresight and imagination it is difficult, if not impossible, to take an absolutist stance on this.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2011 18:01:52 GMT
The daughter of a friend discovered, quite late in her pregnancy, that her much-desired foetus had a severe heart defect. She was given the choice of abortion, or going full term. She was told that the baby would live for a few hours, maybe a few days, in extreme pain, so opted for an abortion.
I was suprised at the number of people (all of them parents themselves) who thought she should have had the baby, held it and loved it throughut its short life. I thought she did the right thing - but is that because I'm not a mother?
|
|
|
Post by firedancer on Apr 6, 2011 18:24:17 GMT
I wouldn't say so Skylark. I'm a mother but would probably have made the same decision if I was totally convinced the docs were right. Motherhood is not about giving birth to love someone throughout a short life full of pain. To me it is about making what you think is the decision that will cause the least distress to your little one and, in the final analysis, be in his best interest.
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Apr 7, 2011 17:29:00 GMT
Isn't that a bit contradictory. If you try to stop someone from having repeat abortions you are telling them that they are wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Apr 7, 2011 19:35:23 GMT
Isn't that a bit contradictory. If you try to stop someone from having repeat abortions you are telling them that they are wrong. Well, Octopus, I do think that abortion is morally wrong. Sorry if that offends you. On the other hand if the woman's life is in danger or if her pregnancy came about as the result of rape or incest I'm willing to take the view that it's the lesser of two evils. Yes, some women who've been raped DO keep the child and DO love it in spite of how it was conceived. I'm not sure if I could do that but fortunately I haven't been through that experience. As someone who HAS a child with genetic defects and who WAS advised by my doctor to have an abortion but said no I realise how hard a burden it is caring for a son with special needs. I love Lou to bits but I do feel sometimes like I've landed myself with a lifetime sentence. Anyway, aside from all that, even if you allowed ALL abortions for the FIRST time I'd STILL feel that having repeat abortions was being cruel and a lazy excuse for not using contraception. That's just how I feel; I know most of my members disagree with me but that's life. What's the point of a discussion forum where everyone agrees?
|
|
|
Post by sadie1263 on Apr 8, 2011 4:08:08 GMT
They most certainly would do if they've had any children since marrying. They would look at their children and think about the one they got rid of. Horrible thought - I feel very sorry for them. They did end up having a child. He already had one when they got together......and it was years later in their marriage that they had their child. I agree that having children changes so many of your views on things. There is nothing like yelling at your child and realizing that you just said exactly the same thing your parents would say to you when you were a kid.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2011 6:25:22 GMT
I agree that having children changes so many of your views on things. There is nothing like yelling at your child and realizing that you just said exactly the same thing your parents would say to you when you were a kid. You don't need children to realise that! Sometimes I open my mouth and hear my mother.
|
|
|
Post by sadie1263 on Apr 8, 2011 15:37:14 GMT
You don't need children to realise that! Sometimes I open my mouth and hear my mother. Too true!!! ;D I just hate it when I say something to my kids.....and it was exactly what my parents said and I can remember thinking "oh....they are such idiots...I'll never talk to my kids that way!!!"
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Apr 9, 2011 20:37:34 GMT
And I understand where you are coming from too Jumbo, and in principle, don't disagree. Two caveats: 1) you are presuming that the child is not so handicapped that it does not have the capacity to choose and 2) it is of lesser importance that when a family has a severely - and I mean severely - handicapped child, the entire family is then handicapped, which of course means putting their well-being below that of the nominally handicapped one. This is why, in my personal opinion, being pro-choice (which means you can choose to abort or not to abort) is actually the more ethical stance than the pro-life stance, where I for one find myself asking "Pro-life, but pro whose life?" My family's experience has underlined that, unless someone is totally devoid of empathy, foresight and imagination it is difficult, if not impossible, to take an absolutist stance on this. it has to be conceded that principle is so much easier to stand on when it does not affect you. i'm glad that i would never be in your duaghter's position. i suppose that quality of life has to be considered as important as quantity of life. i'm not so sure that a kid, or anyone else, who is not able to do anything that other people do, very well might not consider that they have much of a life. by the same token, i figure that, as long as you have life, there is always hope that it will get better. science is always coming up with cures for things. perhaps, twenty years down the road, there will be a cure for your grandson, and he will be perfectly healthy, and the struggle will have been worth it
|
|