People against Abortion

[truthaddict11]

After reading Michael Moore's "Downszie This!" I am thinking the right wingers who want to ban abortion, do you believe that they believe that they are "saving babies" or are they just controling women by not letting them control their bodies?

[Corvus Corax]

Its a delicate issue, and i believe that if the woman didn't want the baby, they should never have got into this situation in the first place. But i think personal freedom comes first, and they should get the choice, although they should be persuaded to heavily consider alternate paths to take.

[mentalbunny]

Quote: from Corvus Corax on 1:30 pm on Dec. 25, 2002
Its a delicate issue, and i believe that if the woman didn't want the baby, they should never have got into this situation in the first place. But i think personal freedom comes first, and they should get the choice, although they should be persuaded to heavily consider alternate paths to take.

Hmmm, I sort of agree. I'm very pro-choice, but not as in "abortion is good", as in the woman has every right to choose, and personally I think her wishes are more important than those of the father. I am speaking as a girl who would only have an abortion if I couldn't not keep the baby, I don't think I could ever give a child up for adoption.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

It's better to abort a child who you don't want. If an unwanted child is born, his life most times gets really shit and ugly. Look at the hugh numbers of children who are beeing leftbehind by (teen)parents, they come or in the streets or in a pedofelic/problem family.(However we all know the storys of these children who find a nice home and bla bla bla, there is a too big percentage under them who get psychological problems) So instead of thinking of your own feeling of guilt and let the child alive and causing some heavy psycholigical problems later, it would be better to commit abortus.

[truthaddict11]

but are people against abortion want to "save babies" or control women?

[Corvus Corax]

Ones used as a cover and ones the eventual agenda.

[Rob]

I think that people opposed to reproductive freedom are truly that way to control women, but may put up a public front of religion or belief in "life's sanctity."

[Corvus Corax]

Quote: from Rob on 6:56 pm on Dec. 25, 2002

I think that people opposed to reproductive freedom are truly that way to control women, but may put up a public front of religion or belief in "life's sanctity."


Thats is what I was getting at, but there will probably be some people who are against it for 'life's sanctity', although i don't know what is lively about an unborn embryo.

[RedCeltic]

It's not about saving lives. the same people who venomously oppose abortion rights for women support captial punnishment, south american death squads, and all of Americas bloody military actions (including the coming one).

It's all about controling the freedoms of economicly disadvantaged women.

[Geddan]

The conservatives think more about the life of unwanted children and/or children which can't be supported through life, than they think about the children who die every day from starvation, just because the capitalist world isn't willing to share the food we've got in excess. It sickens me.

We must increase our support to underdeveloped countries. Here in Sweden, we give away 1 % of our GNP each year to foreign countries, but I think we should send at least twice as much, we have that much to spare! Support increased life standard in the third world!

[Ari HR]

Quote: from CCCP on 5:12 pm on Dec. 25, 2002
It's better to abort a child who you don't want. If an unwanted child is born, his life most times gets really shit and ugly. Look at the hugh numbers of children who are beeing leftbehind by (teen)parents, they come or in the streets or in a pedofelic/problem family.(However we all know the storys of these children who find a nice home and bla bla bla, there is a too big percentage under them who get psychological problems) So instead of thinking of your own feeling of guilt and let the child alive and causing some heavy psycholigical problems later, it would be better to commit abortus.


Truth. I don't care what right wingers say, for me fetus is not a human. If you are looking from that perspective, then masturbation is a genocide. Consider yourself being raised by 13 year old mother. How your life would look like then is horrific to imagine. Adoption sucks too.
There are countless casses when so called adopter abused or even raped the child.
Truthaddict11 abortion IS a tool of controling women, and not just women- their unborn children too.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

True true..

[Larissa]

In my opinion, "saving babies" is just another hypocrisy of the right wingers and their troubled minds.


Quote: from truthaddict11 on 10:16 am on Dec. 25, 2002
After reading Michael Moore's "Downszie This!" I am thinking the right wingers who want to ban abortion, do you believe that they believe that they are "saving babies" or are they just controling women by not letting them control their bodies?

[anger is a gift]

most conservatives who are against abortion rely heavily on the bible and christian 'morales' to back their argument. all you have to do is go to church once or read the bible and you see that controling women is a big part of that religion. i think they want to control more than they want to save. just like when christians go on 'missions' they are trying to convert more than they are trying to help. their help always comes with conditions. if they were so worried about saving lives they could do alot to help the cause of dying people around the world instead of trying to save fetuses. imho

[Pete]

I concur with Comrade Larissa.
As well since I am a guy, I believe I have no right to comment on this subject past that. It does not affect me.

[mentalbunny]

I think some people are sufficiently warped, at least from where I'm standing, to believe that abortion is actually wrong, there are american fundamentalist christians who are supporting the Jews in Israel against the Palestinians simply because they believe they can convert them afterwards! How shocking is that!

I think that most of these pro-lifers believe they are doing the right thing and "saving babies" while oppressing these women, but they do not realise how much harm they are doing, the majority do not go out to oppress women, they go out to save babies and "do God's work" in many cases.

[BOZG]

to believe that abortion is actually wrong

Neither is it right. While I am pro-choice, I do not like the idea of abortion in any way but it's not my body so I can't really comment on it.

[mentalbunny]

Quote: from BornOfZapatasGuns on 4:35 pm on Dec. 29, 2002

to believe that abortion is actually wrong

Neither is it right. While I am pro-choice, I do not like the idea of abortion in any way but it's not my body so I can't really comment on it.

I like your atitude, of course abortion isn't "right", but it is often the lesser of two evils and for that reason it is legal.

[BOZG]

Actually it's illegal over here in little Catholic Ireland though 7,000 women travel to Britain annually for an abortion. There was a case about 10 years ago where the Irish government attempted to prevent a 14? year old girl, who was a rape victim from going to Britain for an abortion.

[Ari HR]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 5:16 am on Dec. 29, 2002

It does not affect me.


:shocked:

[I Bow 4 Che]

Pro Fucking Choice!

Why ruin a childs life like that...if you can't take care of it...I mean...why bring an unmeant child into this world!!

If you're going to have kids..you need to be 100% sure you can care for them/support them ect. if you can't...it's just bullshit!

[PlasticJesus]

I support abortion because it not only protects women’s lives, it also protects their health. The availability of legal abortion has helped avert serious medical complications that could have resulted from childbirth.

I also think anti-abortion laws are discriminatory against low-income families and the government should implement better welfare plans if there going to outlaw abortion. If a child is born into poverty than statistically that child will live its entire life in poverty. The child is more likely to become a teen parent. This is an endless cycle that is easily avoidable if abortion is legal.

Peace/Love/Compassion,

PlasticJesus

[Iepilei]

Pro-Choice but wouldn't allow an abortion, personally.

A child born unwanted in a household will suffer either physical or mental abuse, ultimately. People often say - "well they shouldn't have gotten themselves into that situation". Well, when you're poor sex is pretty much the only pleasure one can get from life...which is why the underclasses tend to reproduce at higher rates.

it's another wealth control tool. if the conservatives really gave a crap about the lives of others they wouldn't be so bent up on ruining them.

[I Bow 4 Che]

Plastic Jesus brilliant reply

however we've discussed abortion in poor famlies

what do you think about the wealthier homes
is there much of a difference??

[El Brujo]

"Pro-life" is a bunch of chauvinist bullshit. If they really cared about the lives of children they wouldn't favour capitalism which allows them to starve to death (including the bastard children that would be born unwanted because of the banned abortion).

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Even in rich familys the mother will be the slave of taking care of her child and that causes heavy family problems. This is something money can't solve. She can let it to some nanny ,but that's not like a real mother. The child gets the feeling that his unwanted.

A pregnant teen in panic does stupid things. If abortion is no option they some times let their children die. Just leaving somewhere behind, he gets found or dies from starvation, cold and left behind to the mercy of nature. I read a while ago a story of a teen mum who left her child in her schoolbag in the garage. The child frooze to death.

In China and some other parts of the world they believe that the first child should be a boy. If the child turns out to be a girl, they leave it behind. In the forrests, for someone's door and even in trashcans. Could you imagine that, someday your adoption parents tell you that you have been found in a trashcan and that you were not wanted by your real parents.I even know a Chinese girl who has been found in a trashcan and found by Dutch tourists, now her parents. She gets pretty emotional if you mention it. Shows the emotional problems these unwanted children get. An abortion and the nightmare would be over.

So if the conservatives really care about the sake of children. They should abort it when it has no senses, developed brains and shouldn't let it grow to a child who faces heavy problems in a unfair world where he is unwanted.

(Edited by CCCP at 12:00 am on Dec. 30, 2002)

[I Bow 4 Che]

Wow....I mean...whoa...^ :o

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

What in what way. Whoa like omg what a crap? or the truth is shining in front of my eye?

[I Bow 4 Che]

the second one...

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Thank you, feeling honoured:biggrin:

[mentalbunny]

Has anyone ever met a pro-life woman? I'm sure they must exist somewhere, by some freak of nature, they are probably all religious fundamentalists.

[PlasticJesus]

A nifty little pin I found the other night.


http://www.evolvefish.com/fish/media/B-AbortDont.gif

[BOZG]

I've never met one personally but when there was a referendum about abortion here last year, there were a lot of pro-life women around at stalls giving out leaflets.

[mentalbunny]

Quote: from PlasticJesus on 6:33 pm on Dec. 30, 2002
A nifty little pin I found the other night.


http://www.evolvefish.com/fish/media/B-AbortDont.gif


cool! pro-lifers are strange creatures.

[Larissa]

Soon you won't be allowed to mention D&C in the States, let alone abortion.
Here's an unusually plain-speaking NYT leader on the subject.
*******************************************
NYTIMES EDITORIAL/OP-ED:

The War Against Women
12.January. 2003

Running for the White House in the fall of 2000, George W. Bush did not talk about ending the right to abortion. To avoid scaring off moderate voters, he promoted a larger "reverence for life" agenda that also included
adoption and tougher drunken driving laws. Voters were encouraged to believe that while Mr. Bush was anti-choice, he was not out to reverse Roe v. Wade.

Yet two years into the Bush presidency, it is apparent that reversing or otherwise eviscerating the Supreme Court's momentous 1973 ruling that recognized a woman's fundamental right to make her own childbearing decisions is indeed Mr. Bush's mission. The lengthening string of anti-choice executive orders, regulations, legal briefs, legislative maneuvers and key appointments emanating from his administration suggests that undermining the reproductive freedom essential to women's health, privacy and equality is a major preoccupation of his administration - second only, perhaps, to the war on terrorism.

*

As the 30th anniversary of the Roe decision approaches, women's right to safe, legal abortions is in dire peril.

President Bush's assault on reproductive rights is part of a larger ongoing cultural battle. If abortion were the only target, the administration would not be attempting to block women's access to contraceptives, which drive
down the number of abortions. His administration would not be declaring war on any sex education that discusses ways, beyond abstinence, to prevent
pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Scientifically accurate information about contraceptives and abortion would not have begun disappearing from federal government Web sites.

A big thrust of Mr. Bush's aggressive anti-choice crusade has been to undermine the legal foundation of the Roe decision by elevating the status of a fetus, or even a fertilized egg, to that of a person, with rights equal to, or perhaps even exceeding, those of the woman. This desire to recognize the personhood of zygotes is part of the rationale behind the Bush policy prohibiting federal financing for research on all new embryonic stem-cell lines, despite the hopes that this research could lead to breakthroughs in treatments for diseases like Parkinson's, cancer and diabetes. Tommy Thompson, the secretary of health and human services, was
following the same drumbeat when he made "unborn children" rather than pregnant women eligible for coverage under the Children's Health Insurance
Program.

Mr. Bush has begun packing the judiciary with individuals whose hostility to Roe v. Wade matches his own and that of his famously anti-choice attorney general, John Ashcroft. In Congress, he backs a radical measure called the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act, which would further reduce the already thin availability of abortion services. It would allow government-supported health care providers to decline to include abortion in their reproductive health services. The providers could even forbid their doctors from mentioning abortion as a legal option to female patients.

Unsurprisingly, Mr. Bush is also a strong supporter of the other pending anti-choice initiatives, including the ban on so-called partial-birth abortions. Like so much of the president's policy on this issue, the ban masquerades as a modest initiative that has wide popular support - eliminating already rare late-term abortions - while its actual effects are far more sweeping. This effort to criminalize certain abortion procedures would actually restrict a woman's right to choose abortion by the safest method throughout pregnancy. So concluded the current Supreme Court, hardly a bastion of liberal abortion rights sympathizers, when it rejected an earlier version nearly three years ago.

The effects of the new anti-choice agenda are also affecting women abroad.
On his very first day on the job, the president reimposed the odious global "gag" rule first instituted by President Ronald Reagan, then lifted by President Bill Clinton in January 1993. It bars health providers receiving American family planning assistance from counseling women about abortion, engaging in political speech on abortion or providing abortion services, even with their own money.

In resurrecting the gag rule, the new president broadcast a disdain for freedom of speech to emerging democracies, while crippling the international family planning programs that work to prevent hundreds of tthousands of infant and maternal deaths worldwide each year.

Most Americans would be shocked at the lengths American representatives are going to in their international war against women's right to control their
bodies.

Last year, Bush administration delegates to the United Nations Special Session on Children tried to block a plan to promote children's well-being and rights, taking offense at language promising "reproductive health services." This same crackerjack delegation also opposed special efforts to help young girls who are victims of war crimes - which most often means
rape. The delegates were worried that the measure would be construed to provide these victims with information about emergency contraception or
abortion.

The administration's anti-choice obsession has also prompted it to freeze millions of dollars in financing for valuable programs run by the World Health Organization and the United Nations Population Fund to advance reproductive health and combat H.I.V. and AIDS.

* Last summer, the president withdrew his support for Senate ratification of a women's rights treaty that requires nations to remove barriers of discrimination against women in areas like legal rights and health care.
Just last month, at a United Nations' population conference in Bangkok, the American delegation made an embarrassing, and ultimately unsuccessful,
attempt to block an endorsement of condom use to prevent AIDS.

On the surface, the Bush administration's war against women's rights is a series of largely unnoted changes. It is intended to look that way. In reality, it is a steady march into the past, to a time before Roe v. Wade,
when abortion was illegal and pregnancy was more a matter of fate than choice.
People can debate whether Mr. Bush's various efforts to dismantle Roe and block women's right to choose around the globe flow from his own deeply felt moral or religious beliefs, or merely cater to extreme elements within his party. What is important is the actual impact of the presidential assault: women's constitutional liberty has been threatened, essential reproductive health care has been denied or delayed, and some women will needlessly die.

Other links: http://www.crlp.org/pr_01_0910ecchile.html (Chile Endangering Women's Lives by Outlawing Emergency Contraception)

and in Spanish: http://www.terra.cl/noticias/noticias.cfm?...2&id_reg=226593 (http://www.terra.cl/noticias/noticias.cfm?id_cat=302&id_reg=226593)
(JOVEN EMBARAZADA PIDE ABORTO TERAPÉUTICO)

How's this for cruel and unusual? An unfortunate Chilean woman, with a
completely inviable pregnancy which is threatening her health and perhaps
even her life, is just going to have to grin and bear it, even if she dies
in the process (and she seems to be well on her way, with pulmonary edema,
cardiac arrhythmia, and 4 more months of pregnancy to go). You see,
abortion is illegal in Chile. For any reason whatsoever. Mind you, some
200,000 back-alley abortions are performed here every year, but there are
police in emergency rooms to arrest women seeking emergency treatment for
the botched ones.

On a translation-related note, though the article repeatedly speaks of a
"fetus", the condition in question, called "mola" in Spanish, is defined
thusly in my Stedman's Bilingual: "An intrauterine mass formed by the
degeneration of the partly developed products of conception". I don't do
medical, but this doesn't even sound like a fetus to me.

Is this woman really being forced to risk her life for a blob of waste tissue?

[Valkyrie]

I was reading an article in print the other day.. (sorry, no link) that the biggest method of woman's contraceptive these days is not the pill, but sterilization. There is a new less invasive procedure that cauterizes the fallopian tubes which is irreversible as opposed to the old procedure of "tying" them, which could possible in some cases be reversible. However, more and more woman are making definite decisions to not bear children. I thought this was interesting.....

(Edited by Paris at 8:52 pm on Jan. 14, 2003)

[Valkyrie]

Wow! Here is something racist - racist birth control - The white "Patch"

www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=14923


(Edited by Paris at 9:03 pm on Jan. 14, 2003)

[Guardia Bolivariano]

I think abortion should be allowed in logical cases but never as a sort of "easy" way to not get married or wen you just don't want another child.In those cases we have adoption.Just renember all of the freaks out there that are even cloning themselves to be able to have a child.

[Larissa]

Another inetersting link:
http://www.thirdage.com/news/archive/ALT02...27-01.html?hnav (http://www.thirdage.com/news/archive/ALT02000927-01.html?hnav)

[Don Amodeo]

Quote: from mentalbunny on 5:28 pm on Dec. 29, 2002
I think some people are sufficiently warped, at least from where I'm standing, to believe that abortion is actually wrong, there are american fundamentalist christians who are supporting the Jews in Israel against the Palestinians simply because they believe they can convert them afterwards! How shocking is that!

I think that most of these pro-lifers believe they are doing the right thing and "saving babies" while oppressing these women, but they do not realise how much harm they are doing, the majority do not go out to oppress women, they go out to save babies and "do God's work" in many cases.


From my point of view, this is exactly whats happening. And its a shame because at the same time, 500 years from no we will be looking at this along with our religions, as "o my god, how could somebody believe this." I heard some people talking about how this is just a problem for the poor, but really its not. The richest man in the world's daughter would go through the same emotional pain as someone from the lower class. While if I got a girl pregnant, I would urge her not to get an abortion, I could never imagine actually demanding her. And this would be partly my responsibility. If I was a girl I could never allow some politician who I had never met to tell me its ok to get an abortion or not to.

"I think abortion should be allowed in logical cases but never as a sort of "easy" way to not get married or wen you just don't want another child.In those cases we have adoption.Just renember all of the freaks out there that are even cloning themselves to be able to have a child." -Guardia Bolivariano

For there to be any sort of law like this would be horrible, and very detrimental as it would definitely cause more harm than good. The girls would do it anyway without help using homemade things, and could potentially kill themselves. So the choice must stay, for all cases. It is not logical for there to be a criteria for the right to have an abortion. What goes on in a teenage girls head at this time only she knows, not some fifty year old Harvard judge. Unfortunately, Bush will be placing a new Justice in the Supreme Court soon, which will probabily be a pro-life judge. This issue will be more important than ever within the coming years, especially if Bush is re-elected, as expected. Lastly, I would like to make it clear that pro-life is a right wing point of view, not all capitalists are for the abolition of Roe v. Wade.

(Edited by Don Amodeo at 10:30 pm on Jan. 14, 2003)

[Doshka]

actually mentalbunny living in jordan MOST of the girls around me are 'prolifers'. pro life...thats retarded their taking away the life of the mother...either this means that because shes a teenager she wont be able to finish highschool or university...or she cant afford this baby so shell have to starve and work like a maid to make up for it...or other reasons...should we choose the life of this unborn fetus over the life and health of the mother?

[RedFW]

I cannot remember who said it (please excuse my laziness), but earlier in this thread someone said that 7000 women from the Republic of Ireland travel to Britain each year to have abortions (these are the abortions we know about; the number of "illegal" or "backstreet" abortions is not documented, and I would guess these would be higher). This also only takes into account the number going to Britain. Some also travel to the Netherlands. This would indicate to me that banning abortion, making it difficult for a women to have access to facilities that offer safe abortion on demand and making it very expensive (travel and paying for the procedure) is not working!

As the article posted by Larissa pointed out, the withdrawl of information about abortion and other family planning information, the witholding of funds for family planning services offering this information will result in more unplanned pregnancies and the spread of STDs or STIs.

It is the saving "babies lives" facade which really angers me.

If someone has a problem with abortion, the best way to reduce them is to invest in family planning that will offer impartial advice and free family planning services ie contraception, advice and guidance and the antithesis to abstinence education, which would be an openess about sex and all the options, of which abstinence is just one.

Someone also said earlier that women who have abortions should not have become pregnant in the first place (sorry this is a paraphrase). IIRC more than 50% of women who seek abortions do so after the contraceptive they were using has failed. I seem to recall the number being 80% but I am not sure if this is for the UK or is an international figure, and I think it is from Marie Stopes International; I will try to find a link.

[CubaVictoria1983]

This is a HELL OF A DELICATE subject. All my life I've been pretty into people's rights and freedoms, hence why I am a member of thir forum, but abortion still gets me. My main reason to not be so comfortable with it would be the reason a lot of people say, if you didn't want a baby, you shouldn't have put yourself in that situation. I think that now-a-days we have a HUGE amount of birth control methods that would minimize the need for abortions. What it all comes down to is education. I'm not saying that only stupid girls have abortions or anything, that's their problem, their life and their choice, but, they could have saved time and troubles if they would have taken the pill and made Johnny slip on a condom. As for whether it's about 'saving lives' or 'taking away a woman's right to choose', my reason would be to save lives. I do think that a lot of kids grow up being 'weird' or whatever, but who the hell isn't weird. Most of the people who I know don't come from a two parent household but we're still making it. Who knows, maybe the little one someone flushed down the toilet would have been the next Marx or maybe the next Hitler, but no one will know, because his chance was denied.

[CubaVictoria1983]

I also forgot to add, that I guess I'm OK with the abortion clinics because if they weren't up there a lot of girls would go through alley abortions that would endanger their lives to a higher degree...so I guess my opinion is a bit fuzzy...:(

[Hate Your State]

If a woman doesn't want her child, she'll kill it once it's been born. That's an all-too-common occurence. Abortion is not murder, it is humane.