[les3547]

Anyone else conflicted about abortion rights? For me it goes like this:

I support a woman's right to choose, but I am distressed by the idea of abortion.

I am turned off by efforts to defund Planned Parenthood, but I find myself feeling silent gladness to hear states are requiring abortions be done within first 20 weeks, or requiring an ultrasound prior to abortion.

I hear the arguments that a fetus feels nothing, but I remember when doctors said someone in a coma was dead to the world, but then it turns out this guy was aware of the entire 23 years of his supposed "vegetative state."

If we terminate life, shouldn't we err on the side of caution?

[Ratmagiclady]

Anyone else conflicted about abortion rights? For me it goes like this:


If we terminate life, shouldn't we err on the side of caution?

That's the point: "We" aren't doing anything, 'erring' or not.

It's a mother's decision, no one else's. Certainly not a lowest common denominator of strangers somehow deciding to remove that decision from her and appointed medical professionals.

Period.


If you want to influence the choice, then do what can be done to make more of pregnancies planned and well-supported, fewer unplanned, (or coerced) and fewer of them some kind of sentence for both the mother and whoever's being incarnated.

Trying to set some control or arbitrary date removes a mother's right, but accomplishes nothing of good.


Motherhood's a sacred and good thing in *my* religion, and nothing to be set down lightly, (Contrary to how some will characterize us since we do hold this to be a mother's right and decision, not theirs,) but some other person from some other religion complicating things doesn't make that any more so.

The political debate is about *control.* Over people, not *from* people and in their own lives.


From my experience as Pagan clergy, I'll say this, though: 'Human life' is in my fingernail clippings: *a* human life is a *human experience,* ...and I think that when *that* starts, a mother knows and no preacher or senator's gonna know the telling of it: we might say ''quickening.' Something changes there that *needs* no enforcement if people truly have a choice. Not just *commands* and an 'SLS YOYO.'


The political debate isn't about 'life,' it's about who 'owns' it.

[GeneV]

There are two lives involved, and we are talking about law.

The law does not, under any other circumstance, require that we give any part of our bodies to another. You run over another person, your blood can save his life. You are not required to give blood.

Now add to this, the fact that it is not clear at what point a group of cells becomes a human, and this is not a difficult legal decision IMO. The law does not require us to give our bodies to another.

If it were my child and my decision, it would be tougher from an ethical point of view. I would give blood for the guy, too. Still, that is my decision, not the law's.

[les3547]

It's a mother's decision, no one else's.

I am familiar with the argument that only the mother should decide, but I don't see it. Certainly merely stating it is the mother's decision is not a justification. Is it because the mother owns the fetus? When does a mother stop owning? Why shouldn't she be able to kill the child, say, right after birth? Did the mother create the fetus, or just allow pre-existing biology to be set in motion? What gives her so much right and the fetus none? If it is because she has to carry and care for the child, then shouldn't she have been equally as responsible for getting pregnant in the first place?

Remember, I am conflicted about this, and asking if others are too. I wouldn't try to pass laws denying abortion, but it doesn't feel right either. Plus, I am happy some are trying to make abortion the absolute last resort, and not so easy as walking into a clinic and saying "kill it."

[les3547]

There are two lives involved, and we are talking about law.

The law does not, under any other circumstance, require that we give any part of our bodies to another. You run over another person, your blood can save his life. You are not required to give blood.

Now add to this, the fact that it is not clear at what point a group of cells becomes a human, and this is not a difficult legal decision IMO. The law does not require us to give our bodies to another.

If it were my child and my decision, it would be tougher from an ethical point of view. I would give blood for the guy, too. Still, that is my decision, not the law's.

But you didn't get get the guy living in the first place. It is not a proper analogy.

Saying "give our bodies to another" is not accurate. A body is not given, it is used, and the use is caused by the actions of the person owning the body.

If we don't know when a group of cells feels and knows, then how is it we get to assume for the convenience of the person wanting to terminate the pregnancy?

You say "two lives are involved," but only talk about what one life wishes.

I don't see how it is easy legally when the law is based on so many unsubstantiated assumptions.

Yet I feel empathy for those pregnant who are not ready to handle it. Possibly abortion is better than having an unwanted child who won't be cared for. But that doesn't mean we should accept abortion so easily, even calling it a "right," does it?

[GeneV]

But you didn't get get the guy living in the first place. It is not a proper analogy.

Saying "give our bodies to another" is not accurate. A body is not given, it is used, and the use is caused by the actions of the person owning the body.

If we don't know when a group of cells feels and knows, then how is it we get to assume for the convenience of the person wanting to terminate the pregnancy?

You say "two lives are involved," but only talk about what one life wishes.

I don't see how it is easy legally when the law is based on so many unsubstantiated assumptions.

Yet I feel empathy for those pregnant who are not ready to handle it. Possibly abortion is better than having an unwanted child who won't be cared for. But that doesn't mean we should accept abortion so easily, even calling it a "right," does it?

The right to control our own bodies is one of the most basic rights there are.

The law would not require a person to give blood, heart, liver or any other part of a body to anyone, whether they brought the other person into the world or not. The assumption that there something different about this is very close to assuming sex is always to procreate.

Her body is given for nine months. Her blood, her pain, her risk.

Again, you run over the man. Your accident didn't cause his life but you caused his injury leading to death. You don't have to give any part of your body to him. Period. That's the law. There is no logical, legal reason for making a distinction between a life you created and one you took by accident.

I said two lives are involved because your first post seemed to ignore the life of the mother. If you need my kidney, and it means your life, it will be only one of us who will make the decision whether I give it or not.

The law I am talking about is not based upon any dubious assumptions about when life begins. It is universal for all living humans. No one must house another person in their body. No one must, by law, give another person their blood or bodily fluids. That may be right or wrong in any particular case, but it is consistent.

The basis of the right to privacy is the government does not get into your body. Maybe you should give your body to someone else in certain situations. It may even be true in many cases involving pregnancy. However, that is your moral decision, not the government's decision.

[mikemike]

It's a mother's decision, no one else's.

Is a woman who decides to abort a pregnancy a "mother?" I thought the proper term would be "expectant mother" and if they are deciding against carrying the pregnancy to term than they cease to be expecting to be a mother and return to being just a plain old woman.

Why doesn't the "father" or maybe we should call him the "sperm donor" ever get a voice in the decision? I think abortion should be legal too, but I think that men should be able to decide to have the pregnancy aborted if they did not mean to impregnate their partner or decide for any reason that they are not ready to take on the responsibilities of being a father.

I think the laws and courts are too biased against men when it comes to issues dealing with child rearing.

[les3547]

No one must house another person in their body. No one must, by law, give another person their blood or bodily fluids. That may be right or wrong in any particular case, but it is consistent.

Gene, keep in mind I don't want to repeal the law. I am wondering why if I support it why I keep finding myself happy about restricting it.

I don't have time to answer you point by point right now since I am being called on by wife to serve her dinner. But one point of yours strikes me as unfair. How is it one can say no person is "required" to give another bodily fluids, etc., yet who was it that created that sort of situation in the first place?

Are you saying that if you allow yourself to get pregnant, a situation that requires the nourishment of a baby in your body, then somehow you are being imposed upon if expected to follow the laws of nature?

[Ratmagiclady]

Is a woman who decides to abort a pregnancy a "mother?"

By the standards *you* seek to impose, she is.

If she's not the one to make that decision, she's just an incubator.

Why doesn't the "father" or maybe we should call him the "sperm donor" ever get a voice in the decision?

Who says he *doesn't* if he happens to be part of it? If he's not welcome in the decision, he's already voided his stake.

What's he gonna do, write his congressman? Call a preacher?

Exactly what are you trying to *force* here? And upon whom?

Women aren't *machines* to be programmed or controlled by some abstraction.

And neither are men.

People who think they have some right to to 'decide' for others *forget* this. 'Where do you draw the line?' they say.

Well, you *don't.*

Get it?

I think abortion should be legal too, but I think that men should be able to decide to have the pregnancy aborted if they did not mean to impregnate their partner or decide for any reason that they are not ready to take on the responsibilities of being a father.

That's like Monsanto pollenating neighboring fields and then claiming copyright.

Ain't his *land.*

I think the laws and courts are too biased against men when it comes to issues dealing with child rearing.

I think men think they're being 'discriminated against' when they don't get to control everyone else.


When it comes down to it, all this is is 'pro-lifers' trying to say, 'I want control over mothers, cause what-if'.

I got news for you. Being a mother's nothing *but* 'What if' most of the time.

That's why it's her right. Not yours. Not mine. Hers.

If you're worried about outcomes, it seems to work well enough. If we're free.

[les3547]

I think men think they're being 'discriminated against' when they don't get to control everyone else.

Well, I must admit that I sometimes suspect that the radical, fetus-has-no-rights, mother is all that matters viewpoint is feminist revenge rhetoric. What possible difference does it make to the issue of whether a fetus feels or has rights if women have been controlled by men for all of history? Should we sacrifice all our laws to the pay-back needs of those long wronged?

[Ratmagiclady]

Well, I must admit that I sometimes suspect that the radical, fetus-has-no-rights, mother is all that matters viewpoint is feminist revenge rhetoric. What possible difference does it make to the issue of whether a fetus feels or has rights if women have been controlled by men for all of history? Should we sacrifice all our laws to the pay-back needs of those long wronged?

You can 'suspect' that of 'someone' or read what I actually wrote.

[Ratmagiclady]

Or let's put it this way, when I go to bed I say my prayers to a Mother Goddess. Do you really think I'm 'pro-abortion' or just so over some kind of trivial projection?



No.

But the *laws* you 'ask' 'Shouldn't we support' aren't *for mothers,* they're for someone else *owning* that, out of some need to control, even with a 'date.'

Instead of what's *real.* And I *assure* you, when you're a mother, even not-a-birth mother. That's *more* real than any of this noise.


Also check the actual content of the actual laws actually-supported, and try to tell me that's for *anyone's* rights. They're trying to make *rape* like the 50's down here and call it 'pro-life.' While of course vilifying mothers they insist on depriving of sex ed and demanding they be barefoot, pregggers, and destitute.

While 'mikemike,' of course squalls, 'You're discriminating against men if men can't take mothers' rights' In their own *bodies.*

It's BS.

I say, the *reality* needs no *enforcement.* Cause, it's *cooler than that.* And again more real than *this.*


And I'll tell you this: I used to be *with* a midwife, and despite having been a mother myself under other circumstances, I couldn't do what she does. If I was there being the one to talk about that kind of stuff, chances are I was the only priestess on the block and someone was making it imminently-complicated, as in always economically, and sometimes-tactically not secure.


And I know what I say. The reality is *more real* than these books and controls or 'debates' or even some ass not respecting it or her and trying to bash doors down cause someone told him he *owned* someone.

You value motherhood, *treat it that way.* Trust the process, and look at *reality.*


Reality and human experience say this ain't your call. If it was *obvious* it wouldn't be 'divisive.'
Sometimes when things are 'divisive,' that means there's no 'one answer to impose.' And that's why we... Are supposed to be *free to choose.*

Especially cause of this simple fact: A mother knows.

Babies or not-babies aren't about *revenge,* or even 'not-revenge.' But you bet your *bippy* I'm a feminist. That includes 'feminist' not meaning what you say it means when you want more control.


As for people trying to erode womens' and mothers' rights for political and religious agendas, they *do* it by presenting people with some notion 'You have to make a decision here for all,' ... but the fact is, *no we don't.* Every single pregnant woman does. And that includes whether or not any *man* in particular gets a say, as well, mikemike. (And the fact is that men who are treating someone right don't have to run to a preacher or Newt Gingrich *to* be included. Again, not your call. )

[mikemike]

Who says he *doesn't* if he happens to be part of it? If he's not welcome in the decision, he's already voided his stake.
What's he gonna do, write his congressman? Call a preacher?
Exactly what are you trying to *force* here? And upon whom?
Women aren't *machines* to be programmed or controlled by some abstraction.
And neither are men.

Maybe file suit requesting an abortion or release from child support obligations. Although I have never been in the situation or been privy to discussions regarding an abortion I am sure that in cases where the girlfriend tells the boyfriend that shes pregnant and he wants her to have an abortion there are attempts made with varying degrees of pressure to push the procedure it is just something much more informal now.

Or if the woman wants to have an abortion make it required that she either notify the man who impregnated her or file rape charges and testify under oath that the intercourse was not consensual. The man should have the right to document that he either consents to the divorce or offer to take responsibility and raise the child on his own.

I agree with les and president obama that I think abortion should absolutely be legal and available but every abortion is a tragedy and the number should be minimized. Given the tragic nature of abortions I think that we should try to track who is causing these unwanted pregnancies which result in abortions and try to intervene in the behavior that leads to it whether it is getting unreported rapists off the streets, remedial sex ed for men and women who are party to multiple abortions, or whatever other reasons might lead to unwanted pregnancies which end in abortion.

I think men think they're being 'discriminated against' when they don't get to control everyone else.

No... I think they are discriminated against when I see stable fathers who only get limited custody compared to unfit mothers and in issues like this where a man has no way to even formally voice his opposition to an abortion.

Women play games with pregnancies trying to rope men in for a marriage or trying to play mind games with pretend pregnancies. Unlike physical abuse, there isn't any criminal or legal recourse for the psychological and emotional abuse which goes on in relationships and anything related to using a pregnancy as relationship leverage is one of the most abusive things women can and do all the time to men.

[Ratmagiclady]

Suddenly for more 'government control,' then are, you, Mikemike?


You say some 'what ifs' and want women's rights taken away?

Interesting. But you diverge from topic to just generally saying 'Don't trust women with their own bodies.' Or, now, relationships.

(See where this goes, Les?)

Let's not even go to where the same people are attacking my civil rights on the notion I must be inferior to them, too, if I *don't* breed, eh?

[les3547]

Babies or not-babies aren't about *revenge,* or even 'not-revenge.' But you bet your *bippy* I'm a feminist. That includes 'feminist' not meaning what you say it means when you want more control.

I want control? Where do you see that? I didn't request, expect or want it. I haven't suggested changing the law. I simply said I am conflicted about individual rights and killing a fetus as I find myself unexpectedly cheering efforts by states to make women more carefully decide about abortion.

You are feminist? So? What does that have to do with terminating a baby in your belly? If you get pregnant, is your right to kill all that matters? Do you not have responsibility not to get pregnant in the first place, and so subsequently also to your unborn fetus?

Does that mean you must have a baby if you are pregnant? I am not saying that. What I do find disturbing is the arrogance of feminists assuming their rights are all that's involved in terminating life, a life the woman often irresponsibly let get going in the first place.