South Dakota bans abortions

[Eastern Girl]

Well, Flashpoint, like you I support abortions, but I don't necessarily see it the same way you do. I view it primarily, although not exclusively, as a womens rights issue. I don't like the idea that someone could tell me what is okay for me to do with my own body. I am not saying that I could ever have an abortion myself, but I would like to know that if it were something I chose to do, or wanted to do, the option would be there regardless of what other people think of it.

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by mbrown

Well that's a new low on the moral equivelancy scale...

shopping at Walmart and abortions. nice.

You are right.

Abortion has nothing on Walmart.
(that statement would be cynical and slightly amusing if it wasn't true)

[RedHot25]

Sooo...by looking at this thread, we have had an extreme multitude of responses, which is to be expected.

Each response has touched on morality.

So my question is this...if it is such a moral decision, why not let the specific people decide? Its your decision to make. What's wrong with that?

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by Eastern Girl

Well, Flashpoint, like you I support abortions, but I don't necessarily see it the same way you do. I view it primarily, although not exclusively, as a womens rights issue. I don't like the idea that someone could tell me what is okay for me to do with my own body. I am not saying that I could ever have an abortion myself, but I would like to know that if it were something I chose to do, or wanted to do, the option would be there regardless of what other people think of it.

Two questions.

1) Should abortion be used as a form of birth control? If we argue that it is exclusively a women's right to choose then this is essentially what we are saying.

I agree - it should be a woman's right to choose. But when framed as a form of birth control, I certainly feel less comfortable with it. Make no mistake - rightly or wrongly this is what we are moving towards.


2) What about the man's rights? A woman can choose to carry the child for 9 months, and this ties the man to 18 years of child support. How is this equitable? She has the ultimate decision to have the child or not. The 2/3rds of a year she carries the unborn is what gives her the right to decide the fate of the father for the next 2 decades.

This doesn't seem fair to me.

And what of the flip side - under what circumstances (if any) should a woman be obligated to carry a child to term?

Many questions. No answers.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

2) What about the man's rights? A woman can choose to carry the child for 9 months, and this ties the man to 18 years of child support. How is this equitable? She has the ultimate decision to have the child or not. The 2/3rds of a year she carries the unborn is what gives her the right to decide the fate of the father for the next 2 decades.

Thank god someone other than me brings this up (I had this in my post a little above yours as well as a couple other points relating to it). Its always about women's rights and women's right to choose. What about men's rights? We need EQUAL rights on this issue (if we absolutely have to keep abortions), not women's rights!

[calculoso]

I'm a firm believer in abortion rights.

How can the general public have more of a say on a person's life than that individual person?

I don't know if I would ever want my gf/wife to get an abortion, but I'd at least want it to be an option we could talk about.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

why not let the specific people decide? Its your decision to make. What's wrong with that?

Cause in my opinion, its murder. When in your opinion does something become alive? Is murder a moral decision that every person should get to decide? Is theft a moral decision that every person should get to decide? Is being a nucks fan a moral decision every person should get to decide? All three are crimes which have consequences. You commit one of these, you deserve to go to jail.

[Eastern Girl]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

Two questions.

1) Should abortion be used as a form of birth control? If we argue that it is exclusively a women's right to choose then this is essentially what we are saying.

I agree - it should be a woman's right to choose. But when framed as a form of birth control, I certainly feel less comfortable with it. Make no mistake - rightly or wrongly this is what we are moving towards.


2) What about the man's rights? A woman can choose to carry the child for 9 months, and this ties the man to 18 years of child support. How is this equitable? She has the ultimate decision to have the child or not. The 2/3rds of a year she carries the unborn is what gives her the right to decide the fate of the father for the next 2 decades.

This doesn't seem fair to me.

And what of the flip side - under what circumstances (if any) should a woman be obligated to carry a child to term?

Many questions. No answers.

1) If a woman chooses to use it as a form of birth control, so be it. I don't necessarily like it, but it is entirely her choice. I don't like women appearing in those Girls Gone Wild videos, but I can't tell them not to do that stuff, as I have no control over their bodies.

2) This is more difficult to answer. I said that I view abortion as primarily a womens issue, but not exclusively so. I do believe that men should have a certain amount of say while the woman is making the choice, but I ultimately believe the woman still has the final decision. She is the one carrying the child to term, she is the one that will give birth, she is the one that will be providing care afterbirth in terms of breast feeding and the like.

I understand a man not wanting to have to be "tied down" to a child for however long. I would be inclined to make the argument that it is a slightly different situation because telling a woman she should or should not have an abortion is specifically telling a woman what to do with her own body. When a woman has the baby, there is no instrusion on his body so there is a bit of a difference, IMO. I do realize it would be an instrusion on his life, but I still see it as a slightly different issue. Don't get me wrong here, I do not like this situation for men, but I don't see how this is justification for telling a woman what to do with her body.

3) I can't think of any circumstance where a woman should be forced to carry a child to term.

Like you said, it is a complicated issue with many questions that have no definitive answers, but I will always firmly believe that women should have abortion as an option, should they choose to go that route. I don't like the idea of someone telling someone else what they can or cannot do with their body.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

Is it wrong to take a human life? Absolutely not. We do it all the time. It is an unfortunate and inevitable outcome of our western society. If you own an SUV and are gassing it up you are doing it. If you shop at Walmart, you are doing it. You think those prices are low because executives are taking a pay cut? Try Chinese slave labour. Worried about oil prices? Imagine if the US hadn't invaded 2 countries.

It is ok to kill innocents to fight "terror"? Bombs miss their targets all the time. But it is not ok to kill an innocent to allow 2 people to stay in college and finish their degrees? Or to prevent an unwanted child from entering the world, taxing our social programs, and possibly winding up being a violent criminal? Again, not that all unwanted kids end up this way, just a greater number than normal?

Wow, what a flawed argument. You can't justify doing something wrong by saying society does wrong stuff all the time. Yes, there are a lot of horrible, horrible things going on in the world. People are getting killed and exploited all over the place. All those things you talked about should be stopped. Here is a first step, why are you against it? It may not be as big as abolishing sweat shops or creating world peace but its easier to complete, the change can happen quickly and its happening right in our own back yard. It won't stop people taking innocent lives but its a first step.

Using the logic you have in your argument, I should be allowed to come over to your house, kill you and take all your stuff. Sure its wrong but the American government is doing it on a much larger scale so.... worry about them before you worry about what I'm doing.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Eastern Girl

1) If a woman chooses to use it as a form of birth control, so be it. I don't necessarily like it, but it is entirely her choice. I don't like women appearing in those Girls Gone Wild videos, but I can't tell them not to do that stuff, as I have no control over their bodies.

2) <snip>

interesting comparisons:
1) Comparing a woman showing her breasts to a woman killing her unborn child.
2) Comparing being pregnant for 9 months to caring for, supporting and raising a child for 18 years.
Apples and oranges.

For the people who claim its not murder to kill an unborn child... riddle me this:
Boyfriend kicks pregnant girlfriend in the stomach. Boyfriend can get charged with assault and murder.

Woman aborts her baby, she's within her rights and a champion of women's liberation.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

Cause in my opinion, its murder. When in your opinion does something become alive? Is murder a moral decision that every person should get to decide? Is theft a moral decision that every person should get to decide? Is being a nucks fan a moral decision every person should get to decide? All three are crimes which have consequences. You commit one of these, you deserve to go to jail.

Not being a jerk or anything, but we are only talking about abortion. That's it, that's all. Should you be able to tell me not to like the colour orange or yellow, because, well you say so? I'm not saying that you should be able to walk out the door and shoot someone because you morally think thats right. Or god forbid become a Oiler/Canuck fan. But in this case, regarding abortion, calculoso summed it up pretty good. Not sure what I would do faced with the situation, but its the individuals decision to do it.

[Eastern Girl]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

interesting comparisons:
1) Comparing a woman showing her breasts to a woman killing her unborn child.
2) Comparing being pregnant for 9 months to caring for, supporting and raising a child for 18 years.
Apples and oranges.

For the people who claim its not murder to kill an unborn child... riddle me this:
Boyfriend kicks pregnant girlfriend in the stomach. Boyfriend can get charged with assault and murder.

Woman aborts her baby, she's within her rights and a champion of women's liberation.

1) I wasn't trying to put showing your breasts on the same moral ground as having an abortion. I was trying to indicate that you are free to do with your body whatever you want regardless of how others may feel about it. That's it.

2) As for your scenario, I am pretty sure (although not positive) that in that situation the boyfriend would be charged with assault, not murder.

[Phaneuf3]

Read my post right above yours and then tell me how in the law's eyes anyway abortion isn't murder.
Also explain to me how you can rationalize killing an unborn child as not being murder.

Edit: this was directed at red hot, not you eastern girl.... you got in there too quickly for me.

and as for beign charged like that. yes, it has happened before. i know of at least one case where this happened in the states.
But your argument about what you do with your body is your business... you are also doing something to the child. and there was more than one person that made that kid as well. you're affecting THREE lives not one

edit2: well affecting TWO lives and ending one

[Azure]

Originally Posted by mbrown

yep.

they had the same thing in the states until Bush passed 'late term' abortion restrictions. The put a spike through the Infants head to do it in the last trimester.

You know, I don't feel so good now.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

Also explain to me how you can rationalize killing an unborn child as not being murder.

I sure hope that you're a vegetarian...

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

you are also doing something to the child. and there was more than one person that made that kid as well. you're affecting THREE lives not one

edit2: well affecting TWO lives and ending one

Again - it depends on when you consider a body to be alive. Is it brain stimulus? Is it breating? Is it the ability to reproduce? Is it holding the characteristics of a potential living thing?

I don't consider a pre-mature fetus... one that has not yet developed brain functions... to be alive. It, to me, is no more alive than the hair cell that is killed when hair is yanked from the head.. no more alive than the cells that get destroyed when breathing in second hand smoke... no more alive than the brain cells you destroy when drinking or holding your breath.

After a certain length of time (what length? I don't know), brain functions and stimulus responses (kicking in response to a voice) give the characteristics that I would consider life. Simply having the potential is not good enough.

[Eastern Girl]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

Read my post right above yours and then tell me how in the law's eyes anyway abortion isn't murder.
Also explain to me how you can rationalize killing an unborn child as not being murder.

Edit: this was directed at red hot, not you eastern girl.... you got in there too quickly for me.

and as for beign charged like that. yes, it has happened before. i know of at least one case where this happened in the states.
But your argument about what you do with your body is your business... you are also doing something to the child. and there was more than one person that made that kid as well. you're affecting THREE lives not one

edit2: well affecting TWO lives and ending one

You aren't doing something to a child in my view, you are doing something to a fetus.

EDIT: See Calculoso's post. He says it better than I have here.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Care to quote any sources for that info?

I'm still waiting for mbrown to show his proof.

I'd be quite surprised to find any doctors doing this sort of thing without any sort of extreme circumstances.

[Phaneuf3]

calculoso,
yes i am a vegetarian.

as for development:
5 weeks - heart starts beating
6 weeks - blood can be seen circulating
8 weeks - the baby's brain is clearly visible in ultrasounds
9 weeks - the baby can move around in the womb and will move away from stimuli
10 weeks - heartbeat can clearly be heard

about week 8 is usually the first time the mother will go see the doctor and confirm that she's pregnant.

When do YOU consider it alive?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I'm still waiting for mbrown to show his proof.

I'd be quite surprised to find any doctors doing this sort of thing without any sort of extreme circumstances.

I sure as hell hope so.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Azure

I sure as hell hope so.

This is from The Pro-Choice Action Network, a Canadian site and the only one I found that addressed the subject of late abortions.

"In the 1990's, access to abortion did improve tremendously. There are now many clinics and health centres across the country that now provide abortions outside hospitals. Abortion is now extremely safe. In fact, I believe that Canada has the lowest maternal mortality rate in the world for early abortions. Even though there is no gestational limits in Canada, over 90% of abortions are done in the first trimester, only 2-3% are done after 16 weeks, and no doctor does abortions after 20 or 21 weeks except for compelling health or genetic reasons. Our overall abortion rate is about 16 per 1000 women of child-bearing age per year, a fairly low rate when compared to other developed countries. About 80% of Canadian women use some form of contraception [compared to 64% of American women]