Abortion and USA elections

Post Reply New Topic

It is if you're trying to protect your own race from a silent genocide...



In a world where universal healthcare and workers benefits exist, the poor mother would at least have some support. Unfortunately, that will never happen in a conservative-run America.

The "too young" thing is actually something that the conservatives and pro-marriage family groups got right. Marriage, at least in theory, provides a stable economic foundation in which a child can be raised. Unfortunately, modern americans can't understand either the idea of making a sound decision instead of rushing into things, or the idea of commitment, so that concept is thrown out in favor of divorces. Also, younger people who do choose to engage in sexual activities need to be educated about contraceptives. See my argument about that further down the post...

As for the medically unsafe bit, even most conservatives (although not the extreme right-wing) still agree that a woman who can't safely bring the child to term should be allowed an abortion.



What we need is more people using contraceptives. We also need to get this "sex is bad" notion out of our heads and realize that sex is one of the three biological imperatives that humanity has yet to cast off (the others being eating/drinking and sleep.) If people used contraceptives more often, we wouldn't even have the abortion issue to begin with.



The base problem actually comes from being a developed country. In a rural agrarian society, a great number of children is desirable, since many will probably die of disease before reaching adulthood, and those that do survive can serve as free labor for their parents from a young age. By contrast, a developed country often requires 12+ years and hundreds of thousands of dollars for education, before the child can be considered able to make any substantial money for the family.

Hence, undeveloped societies often have many children in a family, while in develped societies you will often see one or two in most families (if any). In Europe, there are not enough people being born to replenish the population (birth rate is lower than death rate), meaning that European population is declining. In fact, the US is the only fully developed country with an increasing population at this point in time (China still has a large number of undeveloped rural farm areas).

I think you've got some really good points there, ToadOfSteel. Sadly, I can speak from experience when I say contraceptives don't always work, no matter how many forms you use and how carefully you use them and how well they work. Three made little difference to me...

And Orwell, I speak from experience when I say it is to do with the woman's body and her body alone. There wasn't anyone but me in that room going through that anguish. It ain't a fun thing or without a lot of trauma or heartache and it's one helluva tough decision, but sometimes it's necessary. I can assure you the trauma and heartache would have been a million times worse had I been forced to let the cells grow into a child.

I'll also point out that the average stats for a developed western country are that by age 40, 1 in 3 women will have gone through it. It's not an uncommon procedure, rightly or wrongly. That's a lot of women to be forcing to go down the backstreet route...

My stance on abortion isn't a big enough of a deal to influence who I will vote for. I am pro choice, but I would still vote for Obama even if he was pro life or somewhere in between.

Last edited by CRACK on 31 Aug 2008, 5:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

As said, I don't have a very settled opinion on this topic. I just wanted to point out that multiple interpretations do exist and can be valid based on an individual's views. Stories like yours are largely what keep me from whole-heartedly jumping on to the pro-life bandwagon- reality is more complex than most political debaters would like to pretend, and there aren't always easy answers. I suppose the closest approximation of a view I would support would be to ban late-term (partial-birth) abortions but not first-trimester ones. Exceptions could obviously be made in the case of serious risk to the mother's health. But in any case, you end up making an arbitrary cut-off point at which you distinguish life from non-life. The extreme pro-choice position puts that cut-off at birth, the extreme pro-life position puts it at conception. The more moderate view above puts it somewhere in between that's much messier and harder-to-define but probably works better in practice.

I'm very much pro-choice (obviously) but I do agree - and I think most pro-choice people do as well - that a cut-off point needs to be there, at the latest around the time that premmy babies survive (about 22 weeks). I'd prefer it to be earlier; 14 or 16 weeks at latest, unless the mother's (or baby's) life is at stake. So first trimester is ok, anything later is not. I know there are people who don't find out they're pregnant till they're in labour - one of my friends went through this just two months ago, it was amazing, her stomach was flat as a pancake yet she had a 7lb baby girl in there! - but for most people that would give enough time to realise you're pregnant and make a decision.

Anyway, if you don't like abortions then don't have one. Easy.

A kid who went to my high school was born several months premature. He survived, but is blind.


...
Did they wonder about not having their period?


I'm male, so an abortion for me is not biologically possible anyways. But, as said before, to the pro-life crowd who regards abortion as murder, statements like that are just infuriating. To them, it's like saying "If you don't like killing people, don't do it. Easy." Whether they are correct in their views is another matter, but it's always helpful to understand the opposite view if you want to argue against it.

Fair point.

And to answer about my friend - she had periods the whole way through (though she said they were lighter than they had been, but as it kept happening she assumed it was normal), didn't put on weight, definitely had no belly to show, and did three pregnancy tests in the 9 months prior to her having the baby, all of which came back negative!! She did feel it kicking which she realised in hindsight, but had thought it was just wind!!

How's that for a story to make young ladies everywhere quiver in fear...

(The baby's very welcome and very cute by the way, her parents are absolutely rapt with the whole thing, even if it was a shock followed by a week or two of frantic baby-gear buying when she came along).

Ugh. I'm pro-abortion but damn if you aren't reminding me why I have no respect for everyone who agrees with me. Seriously, read up on the subject rather than shooting off half-baked intuitions.

"Read up on the subject"... err, how about go through the whole damn traumatic, horrible process and have one yourself? Oh wait, been there done that. Think I'm far more qualified in commenting on this than most. Thank you.

Well, I think that most feminists agree with it.

Orwell and LeKiwi both have very articulate positions on each side of the coin. As for me, I like Obama but my sticking point does happen to be the abortion issue. It would be so much nicer to hear any candidate come out and say how much they would support the mother and child, or make the adoption process easier for all parties.

Our country was founded on the principles of '...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Party lines aside, I cannot vote in good conscience for someone whose policies play out as, "Well, two out of three ain't bad." There are always questions of whose life, whose liberty and whose happiness we are discussing--and if they infringe on the life, liberty or happiness of anyone else.

No.
Let's hypothetically suggest that a fetus is a full citizen. What citizen has the right to subvert another human being's entire body to his or her use, even if they will die without it?

If I needed a kidney transplant, for example, and your tissue type exactly matched mine, could I force you to donate a kidney to me? You'll be perfectly fine, after a little healing up, with just one kidney - and it would save my life. Likewise with a chunk of liver or a lung.

Abortion is the removal of human life-support, usually when there is no recognizably human brain function. In any other circumstances than mother and fetus, it would be accepted without question except by a fringe few.

Legally speaking, parents are obligated to care for their children by providing them with food, shelter, etc. Look, I've heard this pro-choice arguments before, and I think it is very weak. It smacks of desperation. There are stronger pro-choice arguments out there, so it seems foolish to me to waste time on this type of drivel. And the analogy doesn't work anyways, because it's not a case of one random citizen exploiting another.

It is somewhat different if one citizen is responsible for the plight of another, yes? That is the case if we are to go by these premises.

Plagiarism is a sin.

Some women have periods throughout their pregnancy. One of my co-workers recently became a grandmother, and her daughter-in-law (a skinny woman, btw) didn't know that she was pregnant until 6 months in because she never stopped bleeding (the baby was born on time, perfectly healthy).

Last edited by LKL on 01 Sep 2008, 12:24 am, edited 1 time in total.