Abortion

[John]

I hope that I don't seem to be maliciously attacking people that believe abortion is wrong. There is definitely a part of me that feels that way too but it just makes me so sad that there are children sleeping on sidewalks and being sold into prostitution. They didn't get much more of a chance than an aborted fetus.

[Vivisanctor]

I agree wholeheartedly with Mattd's take on the situation. I agree we need to be more proactive about the cause of unwanted pregnancy than we are. We should try to stop it before it starts.

That said, it is very important to realize that if abortion is legal, there will always be those who abuse its use as birth control.

Whether or not we flash our opinion around depends on if we feel we have a right to say what the mother's rights are. I personally feel that unnecessary abortion should be illegal. I base my opinion not on the rights of the mother, but on the rights of the unborn human inside her. I feel the rights of the unborn child supercede the rights of the mother. I always have felt more of a need to defend those who are helpless instead of those who are not. Most of the women who get abortions are uneducated and do not realize the full weight of their decisions. I do not think they are necessarily the best people to be deciding whether a human can live or die. But i am a male, and perhaps I do not understand the situation as well as a mother can.

Basically, I'm pro-life, but I'm also not sure I have the credentials to make a sound decision on this issue. I certainly DO NOT think I have the credentials to make the decision for someone else. I know that if it is my child, there will be no abortion. But the issue isn't 'if I got some girl pregnant.' I am responsible enough to keep it in my pants until such a point as I am ready to be a father, and the woman is ready to be a mother. There will be no accidents with me, I will not be irresponsible. (I have learned this only through experience, do not mistake my meaning as being I am above the problems.)

Whether or not we think as individuals abortion should be legal in and of itself is not directly the cause of the laws governing it's legality. In and of itelf, abortion is (almost always)unnecessary. That is not in question. If the pregnancy threatens the mother's life, then most pro-life people are quick to step back and take a more neutral stance. We debate the use of abortion in pregnancies where the mother's life is not threatened. Unfortunately, most women who become pregnant on accident do often feel that their lives are in danger, and they feel helpless. It is only the irresponsible attitudes with which abortion is used that gives most pro-life arguments merit.

We live in a society that is always looking for an easy way out. Abortion is often seen as an easy way out.

President Bush should spend his time looking for ways to make it unprofitable for companies to use sex for advertising. You can't strike a teenager and expect that if you tell them violence is not ok, that they will listen. They see the violence, and you telling them not to be violent means pretty much nothing to them.

Unfortunately, the issue has more to do with where we choose to spend our energy, rather than where we think we can make the most difference, at least for most of us. Should we lobby the government to outlaw abortion? Or should we spend our time trying to stop women from using the option? Or should we spend our time teaching children/teenagers about the risks of sex? It is not really a question we can answer as a group. Some will do one thing, some will do another. That is just the way it is. We can only individually find our role in the issue.

I personally think that fighting against this American stance on sex is where I would start. Perhaps someone with a more 'psychiatrist' attitude would want to counsel women who have already become pregnant and hope to help them not end their child's life, or counsel children who become sexualized at a young age. We need some people in each area, and we need each area to realize that the other approaches are making a difference in their own way.

[Federico]

There are thousands of childless couples who would do anything for a baby. It would take some work, but there could be a program wherein birthmothers with unwanted pregnancies could give their babies to couples who desperately want them. Of course, this is done today, but ONLY by those birthmothers who don't believe in abortion, or for any other reason, don't want to end their pregnancy.

With the end of abortion, it would be mandated that women who have become pregnant, but don't want to keep their children, would enter into this program. Their medical bills and care would be paid for, and they'd carry the baby to term.

This is a clear case of "killing two birds with one stone".

[John]

But are there enough people willing to adopt all of the unwanted children in the world?

No.

The only reason that there is a demand for healthy, white infants in America is because of abortion. Without abortion, the supply would likely outpace the demand.

[Pembroke]

I am pro-life. Im not sure how, but I dont get how vegans or vegetarians would ever support abortion. I also dont believe there is such a thing as a pro-choice, its not pro-choice, its pro-abortion.I'm pro-choice..... I'm not pro-abortion. I support a womans right to choose. That does not mean I want abortions to happen. Abortion is not a form of birth control, but I believe that there are extrenuating circumstances. Rape, incest, and teen pregnancy might (but not indefinately) warrant abortion.

I don't think any pro-choice people are happy about abortions. No one actually WANTS them to happen. My two cents, atleast.

[Federico]

all across the country, each with hundreds (thousands?) of couples wanting to adopt. Many are forced to go overseas to China, Russia and other countries, because of the shortage of babies. I'm not ignoring the issue you brought up about the desire for "white, healthy babies". It is a terrible reality that most of the couples who desperately want babies, will reject those which don't fit the above criteria.

I'm not sure, however, that I agree with your projection that if abortion were illegal, the supply of these babies would exceed the demand. I'm sure foreign adoptions would decrease significantly. Do you have actual numbers (ie: number of abortions vs. number of childless couples wanting to adopt) or is your argument theoretical?

My wife and I adopted a child 16 years ago. We had the opportunity to adopt disabled or others who did not fit the above criteria, but chose not to. There were others, however, who went to the "blue book" and adopted those most in need of a good home.

[John]

No, I'm not a psychic. If you think that there are enough people who would adopt all of the unwanted children if abortion did not exist, plus the other children who become orphaned, cannot be fed, or are removed from abusive homes, how can I argure with you? I'm just raising questions.

And, not to flip the script, but I also believe that a woman should be able to choose whose child she carries. Without abortion, all a man has to do is have sex with a woman and he has a copy of himself walking the earth. That's too much power for a man to have if the sexes are ever going to be equal. If I had a daughter and she got herself knocked-up by some male slut, I wouldn't want her to be forced to give birth to his child.

[Federico]

In 2000, 857,475 legal induced abortions were reported to Center for Disease Control. In 1992, there were 127,000 adoptions in the US. There were also approximately 500,000 couples who sought to adopt a child in 1992. These numbers are the result of a quick Internet check, so the years don't jibe.

The overall perception is that the number of adoptions have increased in this country over the past 12 years. A new large tax break, and the opening up and easing of foreign adoptions, are two contributing factors to this perceived increase. (statistics are no longer officially kept on the annual number of adoptions in the USA)

The numbers aren't so divergent that I'm 100% sure that your assertion, that making abortion illegal would cause a higher supply than demand, is correct.

[John]

So suppose 857,475 babies are born instead of being aborted. For the sake of argument, let's say 500,000 of them are adopted. 300,475 do not find homes. Next year, another 857,475 are added to the 300,475 making 1,157,950 kids up for adoption. Now add the 127,000 whose mothers would not have chosen to abort them. That makes 1,284,950 in that second year. So the rate of parents seeking adoption would have to rise quickly indeed. Also factor in that the more time a child spends in the orphanage or foster care or whatever, the less desirable he or she tends to become. Also factor in the older children who are now being edged out by the competition.

I'm not a mathemetician so maybe my numbers are off. I don't know if the 500,000 includes the 127,000 or not but I assume that 500,000 is the total number of people who were and were not able to adopt. Either way it's only conjecture whether the need would be met or not. And the USA is the richest country in the world.

[Federico]

but, if abortion becomes illegal, and the government gets involved in a significant way, in terms of providing healthcare to the birthmother and baby, placement, and expediting the process, then a lot of the hassle and stigma could be removed from adoption. When we adopted, we had to run ads in papers, fly down to meet birthmothers, spend literally tens of thousands of dollars on legal fees etc.

What I'm envisioning is that many couples who aren't even infertile could be open to adopting in this scenario. The health of the child, and the heathcare while pregnant of the birthmother would be more dependable. The hassle of finding a birthmother would be removed. The exorbitant legal fees would be eliminated, and don't forget the tax write-off.

The numbers of couples wanting to adopt could increase tremendously.

[John]

I'm no expert on adoption so what can I say? It seems like we are looking at the problem from 2 different perspectives. You, Frederico seem to be optimistic that the problem of unwanted pregnacy can be solved through adoption. I concede that this is a possibility, which is why I said that anyone who hasn't adopted a child and says that abortion is wrong is a hypocrite. Yes it is possible that we could adopt all of the unwanted children in the world but perhaps I am a pessimist or maybe I see a different picture of society because I don't see that happening.

Right now, in America I see too many children without homes. Whether they are runaways, or living in foster homes, or in institutions. Throughout the world, there are children being sold into prostitution at younger and younger ages (as young as 4), there are children living on the streets, picking though garbage, fighting wars, and dying.

I don't think that the children who are presently alive and without parents would benefit from abolishing abortion and adding more children for them to compete with. As I said, let's really make sure the present situation is on its way toward being solved before we add more children to the problem.

[~*Blue*~]

i think that people should be responsible when it comes to sex and use condomns or birth control pills (or both!). i've known a girl that has had several abortions and it irks me because it seems to me that she's using abortion as a birth control method. it's better that she had an abortion b/c she probably wouldn't have made a good mother at the time anyway. even if people give the babies up for adoption, most children get lost in foster care or go from home to home. we have an excess of children that need to be adopted right now anyway. i realize that once a baby is created, it is it's own body but since it's inside a womans body and relies on the body of that woman to survive, i believe it is the womans right to choose if she should keep the child or not.

[John]

Vegans should have as many kids as possible!---If they raise them vegan.

[TheFirstBus]

Why should a human die to give space for an animal?

I agree, while i feel very strongly about the rights of animals I feel just as strongly about many human rights. There are of course much more sound way to live in harmony with the animals, it isn't a competition.

[Federico]

"Adoption, in my observation, is a great way to get inexperienced kids into the homes of child molestors. It works about 1/4 of the time."

Congratulations for saying the dumbest most ignorant thing I've ever heard. As an adoptive father of a 16 year old, who has known nothing but love and caring from me and his mom, I resent the abject stupidity of your comment. I've been involved with adoption groups for years, where there are hundreds and hundreds of couples just dying to adopt a child.

Child molesters? Perhaps this is a case of projection on your part.

[veganfever]

Most people here discuss the technicalities, provide justification why it is good to have abortions legal. Some person has Einstein’s quote, about a need to protect those most vulnerable (animals), right under the statement that she is pro-abortion.
I absolutely agree with the person who is totally astonished that people who will go to great extent to protect not only lives of animals but fight for their comfort –namely vegans and vegetarians-will suddenly drop some curtain in their brain so not to see things for what they really are. Is it not just the way our carnivorous co-habitants are? It is inconvenient to know and understand so I will not know and I will not explore but instead go and discuss the fringes and bring charged arguments to muddy the waters without getting to the core of an issue.
Lets G e t o u t o f t h e Box with our thinking.
For convenience we don’t kill people, do we?
What is the difference between a fetus 5 seconds before being squeezed out through very tight channel and 5 seconds after? What is the difference between one 5 hours before and 5 seconds after? 5 days before and 5 seconds after?…..and so forth.
One we call fetus the other we call baby. That’s very nice but what is the significance of this “naming” game that we are playing?
Let’s have “morning after” pills, abortion pills (that work within a few days of conception) or something of that nature but let’s not kill highly developed human being because he/she may cause inconvenience in somebody’s life. And, very importantly, the “somebody’s life” have to include the male part, which is so obvious yet I only heard it from my own mind, not in any discussion of this topic that I have read or witnessed. Let’s bring those boys to the picture.
Forget all these believes and opinions-it’s not about believes and opinions, it’s about not harming any living being unless it is absolutely necessary. Inconvenience….no, that wouldn’t cut it in my humble opinion (boy, is it humble- the humbleness permeates this post, I’m sure ).
Anyway, take it from a 55 yo atheist male who thinks of all life as something so incomprehensibly complex and wondrous, something that is totally beyond our understanding, that how can we take it away so mindlessly and so easily as it often happens to both humans and animals. Do we have a right to do it in any of these cases?
My position on this is pretty clear, I think.

[John]

I think we can (almost) all agree that abortion is a very sad and unfortunate practice. However, it seems to me that when one looks at the issue holistically, the lines of morality become more complex. It is very easy to say that abortion is wrong. What is more difficult is to examine the interconnected field in which we live and realize that sometimes there may not be a totally "right" or "good" way. Some people become monks because they want to cleanse themselves of guilt and remove themselves from having to make decisions which might "damn" them. The rest of us live in a world of light and darkness. Not necessarily good and evil but known and unknown.

[ConsciousCuisine]

Anyway, take it from a 55 yo atheist male who thinks of all life as something so incomprehensibly complex and wondrous, something that is totally beyond our understanding, that how can we take it away so mindlessly and so easily as it often happens to both humans and animals. Do we have a right to do it in any of these cases?
My position on this is pretty clear, I think.

Have you ever been raped, female and became pregnant from the rape?

[John]

I recently stumbled across the website for Newsday and saw a headline entitled "Pro-abortion activists hit Brooklyn Bridge" referring to a march during the Republican National Convention where about 10,000 people marched for reproductive rights.

Pro-abortion? The term is pro-choice or abortion rights. One can be personally against abortion and still think that abortion must be legal.

The anti-choice movement certainly has the press wrapped around its finger. First they named themselves pro-life. Very positive. The opposite side must be pro-death. Very negative.

And recently we have had some controversy over so-called "partial-birth" abortions. This is an imaginary term made up by the anti-choice movement. There is no such term in medicine. The procedure in question is called intact dilation and extraction.

And does anyone remember the March For Women's Lives in Washington, D.C. on April 24? An estimated 500,000 to 1.15 million people were there. That makes it one of the largest and possibly the largest protest in Washington, D.C. history. Well, you just might have missed hearing about it since the media hardly covered it!

[uww27225]

Have you ever been raped, female and became pregnant from the rape?

Good point CC! I was date-raped my freshman year of college. I went to the hospital, but since I was in the wrong county they couldn't do a rape kit! :eek: They made me feel very bad about myself, even questioning whether I was sure I had been raped. The next day I went to planned parenthood, had a check-up and took a high dosage of birth control pills (aka the morning after pill). I don't know if I would've been pregnant had I not taken the pills, but I know I did the right thing. It's easy for someone who's never been there to judge.

[veganfever]

CC, your short, "poignant" questions are simply simple. You operate on feelings and emotions and you treat them as your guiding force.
I prefer to use logic and thinking process (imagine that, I'm an engineer) instead of using of what I "feeeel" in my soft organs as a guiding force. Feelings are extremaly important in our human lives, but feelings can not override our human principles, namely the principle of not doing harm to any living thing.
If Christ was female and was raped, do you think that she would have an abortion?
Do you think that we will be doing abortions in 1000 years, in 10,000 years? I don't think so, because the trend in our human development is clear. We, as whole humanity are just becomming "more human" with every dacade. I'm sorry for people who can not see that-very depressing. If there is this trend, why don't we make some short-cuts than and speed up the process since we are able to determine whats wrong and whats right now?
I have never been a female or raped but I am responsible for one abortion (my wife) in my youth. Since than I did some more thinking (about 30 years of it) to arive to this point in my life. Than I didn't know any better. Abortion was a norm, nobody was talking about fetus. My family member was using it as means of birth control and she had probably a dozen of abortions. Gues what, if I ask her she would probably justify it because she woudn't admit, even to herself that it was wrong thing to do.
But these were different times, difefrent place. They called it a "scrub" (in free translation) just as we invented a language here to conceal the true meaning of the action. Just like omnis call killed cow a beef, killed pig a pork, sloughter houses a "packing facilities" and so on and so forth. You call killing of an anborn child an abortion (some on this board think that even this word is to drastic, so there is yet another wording for it ) instead giving it a proper name: killing.
I am not for a total ban on abortion, in those rare cases of rape or women's health reasons (is it 1% or less?) we should allow it, although rape case is debatable since an adoption is a possibility (don't zero in on it, this is just one of many of my points).
I am talking primarily about results of a recreational sex, about reckless conduct and treating abortion as a means of contraception.
Did you hear me talking about mornig after pill? This is a resonable compromise in mine mind (remember, I'm an atheist and I don't believe in sanctity of merged 2 cells in a religious way).
At the least, lets not be hypocrites and lets see things for what they really are even though we use the language and wording to conceal the true meaning of what we are doing. After we acknowledge what we are really doing than we can try to find a solution to our dilemma, but not earlier.
By the way, I fully realize that making abortion illegal is neither practical nore doable at this time but at least it should be our ultimate goal, where we hope some day we will arrive to.

[uww27225]

veganfever, while i adamently do not agree with you, i sincerely apologize for misreading your previous post in regards to the "morning after" pill.

[ConsciousCuisine]

CC, your short, "poignant" questions are simply simple. You operate on feelings and emotions and you treat them as your guiding force.


Veganfever, you are assuming a lot here. Your opening statement is offensive, dismissive, presumptuous, and to me, considering that when I was held for days and gang-raped by 3 large gang members, NOTHING about how I felt, the circumstances, or anything else about it were/are "simple". You are WRONG about me.

I do NOT operate on emotions alone and to say such a thing and take such a absolute stance is inappropriate. You don't know me or anything much about my life experience. If you'd like to know, I will fill you in. Until then, please do not assume.

As far as "what would Jesus do?" I really don't ever try to compare myself to an absolute in terms of historical figures, mythical figures or any one else's personal experience. If you want to hear about ME and my choices, I will talk about them freely. I'm sure Jesus would want to know...

I have been accused of being TOO logical, didactic and extreme (exacting and to the line on things) but never as one who operated on "feelings and emotions", so you need to check yourself, my fello vegan.

Compassion Rules!
Judgement Sucks!

[veganfever]

veganfever, while i adamently do not agree with you, i sincerely apologize for misreading your previous post in regards to the "morning after" pill.


Adamant=Inflexible. Is that a total inflexibility or just partial?
I wander which parts you do agree with?
I presume, since you are here, you are being vegan for the walfare of animlals? Compasion, caring, not doing harm-these are all familiar terms on this board. At which exactly point they stop applying to unborn human being?Do we compromise our principles on the altar of convinience? I remind you that I allow for exeptions, as I mentioned in earlier post.
If you forget for a moment about those exceptions, we are left with, for all the practical purposes, all abortions being a results of recreational sex. This is hardly a good reason to do it.

[veganfever]

Veganfever, you are assuming a lot here. Your opening statement is offensive, dismissive, presumptuous, and to me, considering that when I was held for days and gang-raped by 3 large gang members, NOTHING about how I felt, the circumstances, or anything else about it were/are "simple". You are WRONG about me.

I do NOT operate on emotions alone and to say such a thing and take such a absolute stance is inappropriate. You don't know me or anything much about my life experience. If you'd like to know, I will fill you in. Until then, please do not assume.

As far as "what would Jesus do?" I really don't ever try to compare myself to an absolute in terms of historical figures, mythical figures or any one else's personal experience. If you want to hear about ME and my choices, I will talk about them freely. I'm sure Jesus would want to know...

I have been accused of being TOO logical, didactic and extreme (exacting and to the line on things) but never as one who operated on "feelings and emotions", so you need to check yourself, my fello vegan.

Compassion Rules!
Judgement Sucks!

CC, please look at the last two lines of your post. The first one says "Compasion Rules!". Oh, yeah? Compasion doesn't apply to human beings? Since when?

As far as the "Judgement" line, guess what, we are all judgemental and we judge all the time. The way we do it, the frequency and the depth, we do it to with, varies but we all do it whether you like it or not.
How would we progress, anyway, if there was no judgement at all?

Your experience was terrible and totally unimaginable to me and I am sincerely sorry for what you went through.
I just fail to see, how this experience relates to the basic principles of humanity that we are talking about here.
I assume,again :) , that you didn't really read my post, or the other alternative is, you chose not see it, because I do think that exceptions are normal in any aspect of human life, and your experience would fall into that category.
Again and again I remind everybody here that what I oppose to is idiscriminate abortions that are nothing more than just last resort contraceptive.
I would like to end this discussion here, because I am not going to dignify anybody who disagree with my views...err, just forget it. I have said my part and I know that the opinions on this subject are entrenched and these discussions lead to nowhere.