Abortions.

I do agree that there's a difference between a radical pro-lifer who goes to such extremes, and the vast majority who, in my opinion, simply don't understand both sides of the argument to make a properly informed decision... But, that being said, I think it's still a valid point that both groups of people are so outraged by the notion of a woman governing her own reproduction, but some part of them thinks it's justifiable to take an actual human's life because of their JOB.

I'm currently trying to find the source of this information, I know I read this less than a week ago, but in Australia over 80% of all pregnancies are unplanned. Over 80%. That is a HUGE number, I know - but to me, the number of abortions in comparison to the number of women who proceed with their pregnancy (unwanted or not) is completely irrelevant. Why is it so outrageous that 40% of unwanted pregnancies are terminated? Surely a termination rate of 40% is better than having those thousands of pregnancies result in children that could end up like Caylee Anthony, right? Do the numbers really matter? Is a rate of less than 10% acceptable, and why is that any more acceptable than 40%?
As has been said, nobody *likes* abortion. It is an extremely difficult choice to make, and not one taken lightly or without considering all other options before making a decision. If 40% of women faced with unwanted pregnancies in the US are choosing termination as the best option for them, who's to say they're wrong? What would happen if abortion was outlawed again - how many thousands of women would be seriously injured or killed in their pursuit of an illegal termination? How many newborn babies would be dumped in trashcans or wrapped in blankets and dumped by the side of the highway in the middle of the night? That's what these 'pro-lifers' (both radical and 'regular') don't seem to understand - if abortion were to be outlawed, it would not suddenly create a society where every pregnancy was welcomed, nurtured, and the children resulting from such pregnancies would be loved, cared for, fed, clothed and cherished the way children deserve, know what I mean? By campaigning to outlaw safe, legal terminations, the pro-life sector is actually promoting the mistreatment of children resulting from unwanted pregnancies, as well as hardship for the mothers involved. The world, unfortunately, is a pretty sad place most of the time, and banning abortions isn't going to suddenly change the fact that some women just aren't cut out to be parents, you know?

And thanks - I'm due in 10 days lol... getting excited now!

questionable content:

^you cannot confuse those extremists with pro-lifers who only picket and distrubute literature.

Alright, but the presence of extremism within the pro-life sector is damaging the credibility of its position. Similar to the way that organized religion opts to cover up, rather than prosecute, its clergy for committing crimes against parishioners, the pro-life sector opts to greet the heinous acts carried about by the extremists within its ranks with complete and utter silence. Furthermore, this silence continues in the face of every other act of brutality published in our newspapers on a daily basis.

The pro-life sector is not so much "pro-life" as it is, simply, anti-abortion. I find this to be quite curious. If the value of life were truly important to a person, I would think that they would take the time to protest and publish literature attempting to end every form of murder in the world.

The reality is that our world is not that black and white. Everyone's circumstances are different, and even acts of first degree murder have been deemed excusable by our judicial system in certain instances. As Donna so eloquently pointed out, we will never end violence by simply outlawing a practice. If that were the case, our jail cells would be empty.

If Roe vs. Wade is overturned, a proportion of pregnant women who do not want to be so will either seek back alley abortions again or murder their children. Isn't it time we pushed for sex education and birth control to be at the forefront of our priorities? Whether a parent agrees with the act of pre-marital sex or not is an inadequate determinant of what their children are likely to actually do. Therefore, we're better off teaching those children to take proper precautions than we are to bury our heads in the sand, hoping that the problem will just go away.

That's my take on the situation, at any rate.

"That's what these 'pro-lifers' (both radical and 'regular') don't seem to understand - if abortion were to be outlawed, it would not suddenly create a society where every pregnancy was welcomed, nurtured, and the children resulting from such pregnancies would be loved, cared for, fed, clothed and cherished the way children deserve, know what I mean?"

I agree with you on that--women will seek unsafe, back-alley abortions if it is made illegal, but I think there's more of a "it's their fault for doing so, it is illegal" attitude toward illegal abortions (with pro-lifers). But I think the way they are approaching it is "a lifetime responsibility is not an excuse for murder", since most of them equate a fetus/embryo's life with that of the mother, and that's the basis for the pro-life/pro-choice division.
Oh wow, I bet you're excited!! 10 days...nine now, you're almost there!!!

"The pro-life sector is not so much "pro-life" as it is, simply, anti-abortion. I find this to be quite curious. If the value of life were truly important to a person, I would think that they would take the time to protest and publish literature attempting to end every form of murder in the world."

The difference though, is that abortion is (mostly) legal, while murder is not, and most likely never will be either. They don't need to publish anti-murder literature because it is already illegal and severely frowned upon. There wouldn't really be a benefit, since how would anyone's attitude toward murder change if they did read a pamphlet? The vast majority of society does believe murder and other killings are wrong.

"Isn't it time we pushed for sex education and birth control to be at the forefront of our priorities? Whether a parent agrees with the act of pre-marital sex or not is an inadequate determinant of what their children are likely to actually do. Therefore, we're better off teaching those children to take proper precautions than we are to bury our heads in the sand, hoping that the problem will just go away."

I couldn't agree with you more. Kids won't necessarily take on the opinions of their parents, otherwise, how would change occur? I also have a feeling that many parents who now do not believe in premarital sex had it themselves, before they became parents and their children grew up.

questionable content:

I agree with you on that--women will seek unsafe, back-alley abortions if it is made illegal, but I think there's more of a "it's their fault for doing so, it is illegal" attitude toward illegal abortions (with pro-lifers).

So pro-lifers are all up in arms over women having legal abortions, but if women were to have illegal abortions they'd just shrug their shoulders and go, "Pfft, it's her fault, it's illegal". Wouldn't they still take issue with illegal abortion, since a fetus is still being lost?

What you described doesn't make any sense to me, because they cannot get angered by legal abortion, but yet shrug off illegal abortion.

questionable content:

They don't need to publish anti-murder literature because it is already illegal and severely frowned upon. There wouldn't really be a benefit, since how would anyone's attitude toward murder change if they did read a pamphlet?

Mindfuck:

they cannot get angered by legal abortion, but yet shrug off illegal abortion.

Mindfuck, that's the perfect response! It seems rather odd to me to only be up in arms about a practice if it's legal, then be completely unconcerned about the number of times it occurs once it's illegal. And if pamphlets aren't viewed as able to change anyone's attitudes toward anything, then why waste the time distributing them?

Deb:

questionable content:

They don't need to publish anti-murder literature because it is already illegal and severely frowned upon. There wouldn't really be a benefit, since how would anyone's attitude toward murder change if they did read a pamphlet?

Mindfuck:

they cannot get angered by legal abortion, but yet shrug off illegal abortion.

Mindfuck, that's the perfect response! It seems rather odd to me to only be up in arms about a practice if it's legal, then be completely unconcerned about the number of times it occurs once it's illegal. And if pamphlets aren't viewed as able to change anyone's attitudes toward anything, then why waste the time distributing them?

You have a point there, mindfuck. But what I was trying to say is that legal abortion is something that is accepted and condoned by the state-- there is no (legal) penalty for it, there are no legal consequences. With illegal abortion, the woman would know that it is not legal, and if she gets hurt, it was her own fault for having the abortion. It's more of a "no pity for the murderer" attitude, not that the fetus aborted by illegal abortions is any different from that of a legal abortion.
Deb, what I meant was pamphlets on murder, not abortion. Abortion pamphlets could change someone's mind about it, since a lot of people are on the fence, and not everyone disagrees with abortions.

questionable content:

You have a point there, mindfuck. But what I was trying to say is that legal abortion is something that is accepted and condoned by the state-- there is no (legal) penalty for it, there are no legal consequences. With illegal abortion, the woman would know that it is not legal, and if she gets hurt, it was her own fault for having the abortion. It's more of a "no pity for the murderer" attitude, not that the fetus aborted by illegal abortions is any different from that of a legal abortion.

See, what bothers me about that attitude (not your attitude, but that mindset you're talking about) is that they have the utmost empathy for the fetus and are willing to defend the so-called rights of the fetus, but yet they don't really care if a woman would hurt herself / die because of a DIY abortion. Remembering that the reason she's having a DIY abortion in the first place is because there would cruelly be no legal option.

It's like a fetus is more important to them than an actual human being. All of those pro-lifers who want abortion illegal need a bloody reality check and realise it will not make anything better for anyone.

^ Yep. But if there was a legal option, that would be sort of defeating their purpose, to "save innocent lives". I'm sure most pro-lifers would have some pity for the mother, like, they would care that she got hurt or killed, but in the end, it would boil back down to "she deserved it for trying to kill her baby".
But I think they're thinking of the lives they save, in terms of the number, not so much the quality of life. They think they're making things better by giving however many fetuses a chance at life.

Mindfuck:

It's like a fetus is more important to them than an actual human being.

*bows down*
And this, my friends, sums up the entire reason I believe abortions MUST remain a legal, safe, relatively cheap option for ALL women, no matter their circumstance.
Thanks, Mindfuck

Well, I hope the Pro-Life sector is happy now. Despite what the opposing side contendes, this clearly isn't going to stop, and the tragedies continue to pile up as the Religious Right forces their issues.

Mindfuck:

It's like a fetus is more important to them than an actual human being.

Thats where the problem lies between pro-choice and pro-life.

It is not that the embryo's life is MORE important then that of the mother's, it is that the embryo's life is JUST AS important as the life of the mother. Pro-life is exactly that; pro-life. Its a belief that life starts at conception and that a mother doesnt have the right to end the life of her embryo (which pro-lifers believer to be a human being and a child), the same way that a mother doesnt have the right to end the life of her born child. That doesnt mean that we dont care about the mother, I definitely do, and I can definitely understand her position, but my sympathy for her wont outmatch the fact that I believe abortion is the destroying of an innocent life.

So it all just comes back to the argument of a fetus being a human being or not. I, for my own reasons, believe that it is. You, for your own reasons, believe that it is not. For you (im not directing this necessarily at you, im using 'you' in a general way) it is a matter of science and what can be seen and proven. For me, it is a matter of both science and faith. Now you believe life starts at...I guess birth...or maybe you believe it starts in like 3rd or 4th trimester, I dont know. And I believe life starts at conception. Now because my belief is partially one of faith, as is a great percentage of pro-lifers, I guess that makes the pro-choice/pro-life argument a stalemate.

I think its the mothers choice ( the mother being the person having the baby) If they truly dont want the cumitment of having a baby then they can have an abortion. But I think that instead of killing the baby the person could go for adoption when the baby is boren.

Quote

Now because my belief is partially one of faith, as is a great percentage of pro-lifers, I guess that makes the pro-choice/pro-life argument a stalemate.

Faith shouldn't come into it. One persons faith isn't necessarily the same as another, therefore I don't see how faith can even come into the argument against unless it is the faith of the person having the abortion, if that makes sense ?

I posted here when I was 12, but my opinion has changed.

I think it should fully be the mothers choice. The government should not tell a woman she MUST have a child she doesn't want. As I read on a post before, not having an abortion can lead to a lot of problems. For example, if she tried to have a miscarrige, she could harm herself or the fetus. And then if the fetus was born, it could have serious physical or mental issues when otherwise it would've been perfectly healthy. But sometimes I do get angry with the fact that men can chose whether or not abortion can be legal. Men don't carry babies for nine months, or give birth to them, or have to deal with the pains of pregnancy, therefore I don't think men should have a say. It gets on my nerves. Unless their girlfriend is pregnant and they're having that discussion, but I don't think they should decide if it should be legal or illigal.

And my faith doesn't really have anything to do with my opinion, and I'm a religious Christian.

^ While I do think abortion should be the mother's choice, I think that somehow, the males should get some say, in terms of paternity rights and responsiblities. For example, the woman has the choice whether to abort or keep the fetus, but the males don't have the choice of whether to "abort their rights and responsibilities", like paying child support and other things like that. Some people might say that it was their choice whether to have sex and conceive the baby, but then again, it was also the woman's choice and her choice to have or not to have an abortion.
But as for abortion being legal or illegal, I do think men should have only as much say as a woman who is not pregnant and not in that position, because after all, not all women will become pregnant and want an abortion.

I think abortion should be a joint decision with whoever is directly affliated with the woman: the partner. I think a lot of people believe that abortion is "evil" or it's killing a child but as, in my opinion, life doesn't begin until a child is born I think abortion should remain legal but the time for it to happen should remain the same, I'm not in any way supportive of some people who want to move the age to as much as 28 weeks. I was born two months premature (at 28 weeks) and I am perfectly healthy so that to me would be entirely wrong.

xMyHeArTfElTrOmAnCex:

I think abortion should be a joint decision with whoever is directly affliated with the woman: the partner.

So, your saying that if I woman is at extreme risk, and her partner would rather her life be at risk than get an abortion because he thinks its immoral, then she just has to suck it up? Even if nothing would be wrong with the birth, the child, or economic issues, this seems wrong to me. You are essentially giving the man the right to choose what the woman does with HER body.

I didn't say he should have dominion over her now did I? I'd be the first one to want independence from men but I am suggesting that the man should at least know that an abortion is in the system... that she is thinking about it so they can DISCUSS it.... I am not suggesting she should "Suck it up" in anyway if it affected her health at all because as you said that would be wrong. A lot of factors need to be brought into consideration when an abortion topic is raised and the fact that it does take two to make a baby is merely one of them and that the man should at least here of it.

^ With your previous post it seemed as if you were implying that the woman's partner had veto right over her choice of abortion. Is that what you mean?