Is crisis pregnancy center anti-choice?
Is crisis pregnancy center anti-choice?
I'd like to know, how any MAN can tell me what to do with MY BODY? How can some stuffed suit ( government) tell me that I HAVE TO CARRY A PREGNANCY regardless of "how" or "what" happened?
Scenario #1: I've been raped.... YOUR GONNA FORCE ME TO CARRY THE BABY? Thanks... I can tell you care...
Scenario #2: I have 20 kids and I am on welfare and no insurance.... Your STILL gonna force me to carry to term? On your dime?
Scenario #3: I am 14 years old and made a tragic mistake, I am entering middle school. YOU WANT ME TO HAVE THE BABY? I'll have to sign up for welfare and drain the public hospital of valuble recourses and time.
Now... Tell me.... Why are you Pro-lifers so adamant about me not having an abortion?
Jana Lewis
ABOC , NCLE
A fine quotation is a diamond on the finger of a man of wit, and a pebble in the hand of a fool.
Joseph Roux
I'm not making your point at all. Germany is a democracy because they lost a war not because of some inherent strength of democracy. Speaking from a historical standpoint Germany is a democracy because Hitler was a terrible military strategist. The south is more of a democracy because of a popular uprising which, at times, was violent.Originally Posted by chm2023
Jana,
Only since you asked, so don't jump all over me...
Because I believe the life inside you is not merely "your body" but an individual. The evidence for me was seeing my son's heart beat, fingers, and toes just weeks after conception; seeing him put foot in his mouth, smile on a 4-d ultrasound, and hearing him hiccup in the second trimester; and seeing his profile looked just like mine in the third; then immediately after his birth seeing him look directly into my eyes as I held him, passing him to my wife and seeing him look directly into her eyes. You see, I don't understand how someone cannot consider that a life, regardless of how or why it was conceived. Adoption would seem to me to be the best option in your scenarios for both the child and some lucky couple.
Spexvet,
You argue that the anti-abortion crowd is simply wishing to impose their morality on others, but can the same not be said of most laws? Can the same not be said about social welfare programs?
-K
Not just the anti-choice crowd, I think it is part of conservative thinking for them to try to make everyone else be like them. Just read some of the posts on this board.
I would say that most laws don't impose morality. Stopping at a stop sign is not a moral issue, for instance. Is the law against stealing a moral issue? Perhaps. I could do without most "morality" laws. I can choose to follow my own morals, and I would allow you to follow yours. If prostitution were legal, I wouldn't use their services, but feel free to go to town. If all parties are aware, and agree, legalizing bigamy would be ok with me. Certainly, there would be a limit - human sacrifices are a no-no for me
The only imposition of social programs is the tax end - and please, mrba and Chip, let's not debate taxes again. Don't get me wrong, I don't endorse all social programs. But no one is saying "you must be on welfare", "you must use medicaid".
I think Jana's point is not whether abortion is right or wrong. Her point is that she, rightfully, gets to make the decision. As much as you were awed by the reproductive experience, not everybody is and not everybody wants it. As a woman, SHE should choose. Could you imagine someone telling you that you MUST have more children?
Everyone should have a choice. I should be allowed to wear slacks if I want. I should be able to worship differentry than my spouse. I should be able to choose who I wish to vote for and not for whom my spouse says I should. I should be able to attend college and be educated and not have my fate be dictated to me by my husband or father. I could go on and on.
I have an intelligent mind and I should be free to make the choices and live with them. I do not need to have a government tell me I am wrong. Many years ago at 25, I decided not to have more children due to my heart problem. I was brow beat by many who said it was wrong. I did not make the wrong decision for I am still here. I even needed my husband to stop work and come and sign off for the state papers. He thought it was a real pain.
To me Pro-choice is all of the above.
So Bev, you should have the choice to jump off of a cliff as well? I think choosing the clothes you wear versus choosing to end a living being's life are two very different things.
Pete,
This sounds like you are pro-choice. I don't think anyone is really "pro-abortion". That would be someone who encourages women to have abortions, or who seeks legislation requiring women to have an abortion. You are like me. I would never try to convince a woman choosing to terminate her pregnancy, but I would never make that choice for her, either. I would even discourage her from that path.
It really comes down to a power struggle. Those who are anti-choice want to impose their values on others, those who are pro-choice want to retain the to choose.
First, let me say I recognize this is a very deeply felt issue- so I understand why people react with passion (most absolute conflicts are like this). Basically, those who are pro-choice are being labeled as "murderers" by pro-life proponents (and I can see where someone might take that personally).
Second, speaking as someone who is "pro-life" (I suppose that label would loosely fit), I don't think it comes down to a power struggle (at least not for me). For me, it comes down to a fairness issue. Let's take our instance of rape, for example. There is no doubt that rape is a horrible crime and that one that results in pregnancy would be emotionally and physically challenging. However, I cannot understand how terminating an unborn child is fair to that child. I do understand that it may give closure to the victim- but at what cost? Extending the point, when the child is a week old, would it be acceptable for the mother to kill the child (since it serves as a constant reminder of the rape)?
Obviously, it comes down to a question of when life begins. I happen to be of the opinion that life begins at conception. Personally, I think there is pretty good supporting evidence for this- but I realize other people may view the same evidence and reach other conclusions.
Anyway, I'm not into forcing anyone to do anything- the law of the land indicates that an unborn child has no right to life, so who am I to keep people from engaging in a legal activity? Apparently the Supreme Court feels as if an unborn child is not a person. Of course, if the mother is murdered and the unborn child dies as well, the criminal can be convicted for two murders. So I guess our laws really say the unborn person is a person- if the mother decides s/he is a person (that seems a bit convoluted and inconsistent to me, however).
I do think its a bit lugubrious to complain about society placing "limitations" on our choices, however. Society does place limitations on our "choices" all the time. For example, why can't I choose to drive my sports car as fast as I please on the highway without having my actions judged and condemned by others? Why can't I choose to smoke my pipe in a restaraunt? Why can't I choose to dispense high index glass in the US? For that matter, why can't I choose to remove the label on mattress? Just kidding there- only the reseller is prohibited from removing the label.
The answer, of course, is because our freedom of choice is limited by the rights of others to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without being encumbered by our personal decisions on how to live our own life. My point is this: in deciding to have an abortion, a person's personal decisions (which s/he is free to make) is limiting the ability of another person to live life. No one has explained to my satisfaction how elective abortion is by any stretch of the imagination fair to the person who is being killed in the process.
I could do without most "morality" laws.
Okay, so we can repeal the minimum wage (after all, why should an employer have any moral obligation to pay a living wage). Also, child labor laws should be tossed (no moral obligation to our kids). Child abuse should no longer be prosecuted (who's to say if its wrong to beat your child- abortion would seem to be the most extreme example of child abuse- no?). We can also do away with drunk driving laws (alcoholism is a disease, so why should we judge actions that spring from it- we don't punish people with hypertension for having heart attacks). In fact, all laws involve morality- since you have to appeal to morality in saying that it is "wrong" to disobey a law.
Last edited by Pete Hanlin; 09-17-2004 at 08:13 AM.
Pete Hanlin, ABOM
Vice President Professional Services
Essilor of America
http://linkedin.com/in/pete-hanlin-72a3a74
Keith-
I am not going to jump all over you. I liked your post, well said. :) Here's where our opinions differ: You and your spouse made a CHOICE to have a baby and enjoy the awesome effects of human conception. Bravo!
Please don't get me wrong, I don't believe that abortion should be used as birth control, I truely believe that young girls should excersize abstinence (sp?) I also believe that people who are beyond their means financially should excersize more resposible behavior.
My whole point is that I should be able to make a CHOICE about what happens to my body. Carrying a pregnancy to term takes a huge toll on the female body, not to mention the emotional, hormonal aspects. So, if I was raped and a pregnancy resulted, I am stuck with months of emotional and pysical baggage. How is this fair? To me?
Pete-
You asked that no one has mentioned the fairness of the unborn. Here's a hypothetical situation. I am 14, and had sex that resulted in pregnancy, I had no choice but to have the baby. I am now a high school drop out, I am not contributing anything to society. I am unemployed, and now uneducated. I have no insurance, so I am going to drain the local hospital of important recourses as well as the doctors who treat me before and after.
Flash forward- The baby is born, I have no money or job, my parents are broke, I have no one to help me care for this child. He barely eats except for federally funded programs that supply us with formula/food.
Years pass- I am 16, still uneducated, trying to just live my life. No one cares what happens to me now, or my child.
The child grows up, through emotional strains and ups and downs. This child becomes an emotional mess and has a hard time dealing with society, because his/her young Mother didn't know any better. This child begins the cycle of irresponsible behavior, and it starts all over again. It just wasn't fair that this child had to live that kinda life.
All of this could have been avoided, had I made the CHOICE to terminate my pregnancy.
This issue is not about abortion per say, it's about my ability to choose. This is not a nazi-femi statement, but I fail to understand just how a male can understand what a female goes through during preganacy and after. This is my body, keep your hands off it! :)
Jana Lewis
ABOC , NCLE
A fine quotation is a diamond on the finger of a man of wit, and a pebble in the hand of a fool.
Joseph Roux
Jana that's really not such a quandry. The 14 year old having no means to raise a child has a moral obligation [to the child] to give it to someone who does have the means and ability to properly raise that child.
-K
True.... but who tells her she has the "moral obligation" to do so? Even with adoption ( which I don't think is a bad thing BTW) the 14 year old still has to deal with the emotional and pysical aspects of pregnancy. She should be able to make the choice to either give the baby up or abort.
Personally- I would have preferred her to give the child up for adoption, but then again, that would be in a perfect world where we wouldn't have the hypothetical issues posted above.
Choice is the key word here... I am not saying that everyone should go and have an abortion, but given "certain" circumstances, I think we should all have the right to choose.
Jana Lewis
ABOC , NCLE
A fine quotation is a diamond on the finger of a man of wit, and a pebble in the hand of a fool.
Joseph Roux
All of this could have been avoided, had I made the CHOICE to terminate my pregnancy.
I have no problem with your being able to choose one thing or another. However, I do wish to be clear on the matter. Basically, the proposition is that one person should be able to terminate the life of another person. That's not a moral judgement, that's just an assessment of the facts. Follow me for a moment... You're 14 and pregnant- in some cases, childbirth may have less complications than an abortion procedure. So, why not give birth and then have the baby terminated? Seems a natural extension of the choice for which you argue. Realistically speaking, this is what late term abortion is anyway.
Point being, you are definitely free to choose what you do with your body. However, the baby is a different person with a different body. S/he has his/her own unique brain waves, blood type, genes, and potential as an individual. All you are doing is providing shelter and nourishment for the first 9 months of that unique individual's life. Really, not much changes after the child emerges (I've been providing shelter and nourishment for my two children for the past 8 and 10 years, respectively, so I'd like to think I have some insight).
Couch it however you like- I don't care what you do with your body. I have reservations about what you do with the unique and seperate body of a child. However, until the laws of the land change to recognize a child as a person, terminating an unborn person's life is perfectly legal.
Of course, all this is sanctimonious babbling. Fact is, we have plenty of children who have been born for whom society seems to care little. In my opinion, the biggest hypocrasy of the pro-life movement is this- while they are so keen to protect children during the first 9 months of their lives, many seem to take little action to provide for children who survive beyond. Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of friends who have adopted children, contributed to educational and other programs, etc. However, by and large, Americans turn their backs on children.
You may recall the episode where a mom whaled on her kid in the mall parking lot and was caught in the act on camera. Everyone was so "appalled." Well, how many kids in your neighborhood do you see and just know they are being abused? How many times does a child visit your home and you have suspicions? How many times do you go out of your way to offer assistance to one of the mothers who has decided to make a go of parenthood? Don't get me wrong, I put myself right in the crowd I'm griping about. I would argue that nearly everyone shares equally in the neglect of the American child.
I've tried to say this repeatedly- I believe a child is a child is a child. Therefore, for ME it would be wrong to have an abortion (and although it is a woman in whom the child is nurtured for the first 9 months, the father is every bit as responsible for that life and shares in any responsibility for that life- maybe not always by law, but by the law that transcends all law). If you happen to believe in "out of sight out of mind" (i.e., an unborn child is not a child), then perhaps abortion is a just that- a viable choice. Furthermore, if you believe the child is a child- but also believe that you should be able to choose life or death for that child based upon your convenience (or the child's future prospects), then you are left with the choice you so seem to desire (but it seems an awful choice to have).
One of my favorite verses of the Bible is- "Let each work out their own salvation with fear and trembling."
Pete Hanlin, ABOM
Vice President Professional Services
Essilor of America
http://linkedin.com/in/pete-hanlin-72a3a74
Amen Pete!
Nice post! I agree with almost everything you said!
The difference here is that no one is pushing their morals on you. And no one is pushing their morals on the unborn child either.
I have a question: Is it mainly christians that have the "moral" issue with abortion? Just curious..... is it in Japan that they have mandatory abortions for the 1 child limit thing? I wonder how those folks over there deal with forced abortions and how it deals with religion and or morals. Any optiboarders wanna take that on?? :)
Jana Lewis
ABOC , NCLE
A fine quotation is a diamond on the finger of a man of wit, and a pebble in the hand of a fool.
Joseph Roux
It would probably be a safe bet to assume that the majority of pro-lifers in the US are Christians. Then again the majority of people in the US claim to be Christians. However, I would argue that one probably doesn't have to be a Christian to think taking another life is wrong, just as one doesn't have to be Christian to think taking another's property is wrong.
Again with the moral pushing argument, it just doesn't hold water because the same can be said of so many laws and government policies.
Its actually Communist China not Japan that has 1 child policy. Communist govenements typically aren't real big on religion, so its completely irrelevant as far as the government is concerned. And since to people of China have no say in what the government does, their opinions/beliefs aren't of any concern either.
BTW, this is probably one of the most civil and rational discussions on this topic I've ever encountered. Bravo to all involved. I wonder how long it will last. ;)
-K
BTW, this is probably one of the most civil and rational discussions on this topic I've ever encountered. Bravo to all involved. I wonder how long it will last.
Total agreement on that point, Keith! I have been astounded at how well this extremely sensitive point has been debated from both sides. As we approach a hotly contested election, I hope we can all continue this level of stimulating debate in such a civilized manner!
Pete Hanlin, ABOM
Vice President Professional Services
Essilor of America
http://linkedin.com/in/pete-hanlin-72a3a74
You all might find it interesting to read Roe v. Wade:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=410&invol=113
There's a bit of procedural clutter (like, who really had the right to sue) you can safely ignore. It's pretty clear that the court saw the issue as one of conflicting rights, that is, the right of a woman to exercise control over her person, free of governmental intrusion, opposed not so much to any right of the unborn, as to the right of the State to protect the potential life she bears.
I really doubt that, if there simply were no abortion, anyone would be advocating the rights of the unborn. I think it's safe to say that the law abhors ambiguity and speculation (you can see an example of this in Roe), and the result of treating zygotes like people would be extensive; for example, lots of wills have specified multiple inheritance scenarios in which heirs are selected based on their having or not having children (or "issue" - hmmm...) - a miscarriage could have a significant effect on the property rights of lots of people.
As it is, there is abortion, and its opponents see an opportunity in elevating the unestablished "rights of the unborn" to better compete with the established rights of the mother. Thus the recent laws which increment the counts against the murderer of a pregnant woman. If the point was to simply provide a special measure of protection to pregnant women, it would have been easy enough to characterize such killings as being invariably murder in the first degree; that surely would have sufficed. But that wasn't the point (at least, not the whole point) - the point was to impute some legal significance to the unborn child.
Pete, your argument seems to rest on the notion that when a woman gets pregnant, she waives her right to control over her person in favor of the potential child's right to life. Well, OK, but I'm certainly not going to advocate that; in fact, as Jana may have suggested, I think there's something inappropriate about men making that judgment at all. I wish there were a way we could simply leave it up to the women. Let them decide; they can just let us know. I don't believe that a man can understand the relationship between a woman and the zygote, embryo, or fetus she carries (I note that Pete referred to these entities as "unique and separate" - to you, maybe), and in that sense, I think men are unqualified to make decrees which impair women's rights in that regard.
'Course, the Supremes would disagree with me on that last bit...
Robert, but isn't that essentially true of parenthood in general?
-K
BRAVO! Shanbaum! I couldn't have said it better myself!
I noticed that no one (except shanbaum! ) has commented on the man/woman aspect of this. Any takers?
Jana Lewis
ABOC , NCLE
A fine quotation is a diamond on the finger of a man of wit, and a pebble in the hand of a fool.
Joseph Roux
Sure, sometimes people choose undertakings which they know will require them to assume duties which may impair their liberties in some way.
Parenthood can be one of those. There may be circumstances in which parenthood is forced on someone. There are certainly circumstances in which pregnancy is forced on someone (and not just in cases of rape).
I don't believe that the act of getting pregnant constitutes, in and of itself, a waiver of "personal dominion". Absolutely not, if it's involuntary.
And even if it is voluntary, as I said, I refuse to make a judgment that balances a woman's right to personal dominion against whatever rights may accrue to a zygote. I can understand that if one believes that a zygote (or an embryo, or a fetus) is in some fundamental sense the same as a human being, one might argue, as has been done here, that a life is a life, and as such, the right to life is superior to the right to personal dominion (that's my term, which I use because I find "privacy" inadequate).
It so happens I don't believe that. I believe that there's a difference between a clump of cells that may become a human being, and a human being.
But even were I to believe differently, I would be unwilling to rule over the relationship of which I spoke.
I'm not qualified.
Robert,
A zygote refers to the single celled organism created through the combination of an egg and sperm and only exists for as long as it takes for it to travel down the Fallopian tube (already multiplying) and to the uterine wall, at which point it becomes an embryo, long before a woman even knows she is pregnant, and might even consider an abortion. So the term zygote seems hardly relevant to our discussion on abortion unless we start to discuss exactly when does a human life begin.
It also may be interesting to note, by the time a woman knows she is pregnant, the baby is likely to already have a developing brain, heart, lungs, flowing blood vessels, eyes, ears, fingers, toes, bones, hair folicles, all other essential organs, and quite possibly has gone past the embryonic stage and is now termed a fetus ...or a lump of cells.
-K
Last edited by keithbenjamin; 09-17-2004 at 05:09 PM.
Sorry, I thought that had been mentioned.
Roe V Wade is the biggest stretch of the imagination the court has ever espoused to completely go around the constitution.
Someone should sentance Jana Na Shanebaum to six-months of listening to
Dr. Laura. She knows right from wrong. Lots of women appearently hate her fro pointing out that they do not.
Chip
After reading all of the posts here, I felt a need to put my two cents in. I am a woman who belives in the rights of an unborn child. I state that first, so that anyone stating men are imposing on the will of woman are wrong. I and my doctor(as well as other woman we know)are having trouble having babies. Let's reiew the law prior to roe vs wade.
Abortion was allowed in the following incidences: In case of rape, incest, and if the health of the mother was in danger. Jana your example of rape is invalid due to the above. Bev is made a educated decision about children due to her health. I know it was hard, but a wise decision.(Bless you). I have know no one to mention incest, so I can't comment on that one. So what does it leave?
Let's see the 14 year old girl who "got"pregant? What the heck was she doing having sex? So played like an adult, act like an adult and take responsiblity for your stupid action. Oh I forgot, we have abortion. Why does her life have to be toast? Can she be responsible and give the baby up and go on with her life? Can the baby grow up to be responsible? So she'll be "fat and ugly" for nine months, so what it's called responsiblity. Also where is her right to have be informed about birth control? Is she going to say "I didn't know where babies come from" Gimme a break. If a child is going to have sex, then she can learn about birth control and use it. to heck with birth control for the sake of no babies, what about aids, stds etc. She decided not to use condoms because of what?
People(men and women)need to look at the big picture. Do I think a woman has a right to choose what is best for her and her body? Of course I do, but what about the child inside? I read a real good thought on this recently. It asked what if the child inside is a girl? You know have taken her right to choose. Is the right thing to?
Jana, I'm not sure why you think the only resolution to unwanted babies are abortion. I have friends who were adopted and they have turned out great. I think of my friends who want a "baby"and can't. When I bring a new person to my family, it won't matter the age. My husband and I want a toddler or older. Adoption for us will be easier. However there are millions of couples who want infants, abortion takes that option away to those couples. How would you feel if you wanted a baby and couldn't no matter what? What would you do? The waiting lists are huge for an infant. You do become selfish and hate abortion even more. Believe me.
As for government regulation. I hate the fact that I am forced to endure the culture that abortion on demand has made. We created birth control(good thing if used)and then legalized abortion. The Sexual Revolution was born. No more responsible people. Do what you want with no consequences. Since the late 60's it has been a spiraling downfall of despair. I'm not saying purity is going to happen, but as Pete said, why have laws in place for anything.(Sorry Pete, edited alittle)I could list all sorts of issues, but that would take forever.
This was a great thread:-) It made people be strong in their words. Strong in their beliefs.
Christina
I don't understand the "being born into a bad situation" argument. Adoption solves that.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks