How to Prevent Eugenic Abortions
19 Apr 2010, 5:08 pm
Demonique wrote:
Callista wrote:
It is NOT as easy as passing a law. Even if you're pro-choice, you haven't got any good reason to be sitting back, satisfied that you've given "reproductive freedom", whatever that means, to the country's women, because what we have right now is a betrayal of a woman's very nature. Making it so hard to raise children that you have to kill your own fetus just to have a decent life is NOT women's rights. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
What do you mean by a woman's very nature? Motherhood? I'm a woman and that's NOT my nature, don't presume to speak for other women, just because I'm a woman doesn't mean I want to squeeze out the next generation.
If I ever get pregnant I damn sure want the option of getting rid of it, I DON'T WANT a child, I DON'T WANT to give birth to one.
That's how I feel too. I don't want a child and I don't want to give birth, and being told it's a major part of my nature is kinda like being told I have wings. Where are they?
_________________
'You're so cold, but you feel alive
Lay your hands on me, one last time' (Breaking Benjamin)
19 Apr 2010, 6:04 pm
I'm a male and procreation seems like the most unnatural thing in the world to me.
Aside from the raw instinct itself, I can't even understand why anyone would desire to procreate.
Whatever pleasure alot of humans get out of it is a wholly alien pleasure to me.
For one thing....I can't even stand being around kids for five minutes, let alone 18 years or so.
19 Apr 2010, 6:56 pm
Quote:
That's how I feel too. I don't want a child and I don't want to give birth, and being told it's a major part of my nature is kinda like being told I have wings. Where are they?
I agree - I have never had a maternal feeling in my life - the though of giving birth sickens me, and I dislike babies/young children in general. I do agree that we need more support for people who CHOOSE to have children and I agree that someone shouldn't have to have an abortion when they truly want the child but can't have one because of circumstances. However, that does not mean that we should take away rights for all the other women who do not want children or do not want to go through with a particular pregnancy.
19 Apr 2010, 7:21 pm
Demonique wrote:
Callista wrote:
It is NOT as easy as passing a law. Even if you're pro-choice, you haven't got any good reason to be sitting back, satisfied that you've given "reproductive freedom", whatever that means, to the country's women, because what we have right now is a betrayal of a woman's very nature. Making it so hard to raise children that you have to kill your own fetus just to have a decent life is NOT women's rights. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
What do you mean by a woman's very nature? Motherhood? I'm a woman and that's NOT my nature, don't presume to speak for other women, just because I'm a woman doesn't mean I want to squeeze out the next generation.
If I ever get pregnant I damn sure want the option of getting rid of it, I DON'T WANT a child, I DON'T WANT to give birth to one.
Now, this is coming from someone who only identifies as female because she's not actually repelled by the fact that she's got boobs and a uterus; maybe people who have stronger gender identities think that there's more to gender than I do. All the gender tests have me as somewhere-in-between; I just don't think that being female is any more significant to me than any other aspect of my physical body.
Maybe I should have made that clearer before I started referring to "what makes a woman a woman"--rather than assuming you thought it meant the same, mostly biological, thing that I think it does.
However you define womanhood, though, it is still a huge betrayal of women in general when you arrange things in such a way that women can easily, and often do, get into situations that force them to either put their lives on hold or kill their own offspring. Men almost never get into that sort of a bind, and that is not gender equality.
The right not to have a child if you don't want one is why I think birth control and adoption need to be easier to access. How many times do I have to say it?--This isn't me being against people having their rights; it's me saying that there's more than just one person's rights involved. If I didn't care about human rights, I'd be fine with abortion. It's not human rights that's the divisive issue; we all agree about those. It's the definition of "human" that makes the difference.
_________________
Reports from a Resident Alien:
http://chaoticidealism.livejournal.com
Autism Memorial:
http://autism-memorial.livejournal.com
19 Apr 2010, 11:48 pm
Callista wrote:
I'm not seeing any impoliteness here, really.
I agree, the serious debaters are handling themselves... seriously.
But I would suggest a re-reading of post #1: IF you desire abortion you are a selfish, murdering scumbag. It's pretty clear; Poster #2 got it right away and so did I. I don't think conditional namecalling has a place here any more than direct assaults do. How would you feel if someone called you something offensive but couched it in such a way that it only applied to your subgroup? If anything, it's even more cowardly.
This is NOT okay. The name-calling should be removed from the original post. I have enough baggage to carry around without some snarky little know-it-all tossing off insults.
20 Apr 2010, 12:25 am
Meow101 wrote:
pumibel wrote:
Callista wrote:
I think abortion should be illegal.
I also think that most pro-lifers (and, for that matter, most pro-choicers) are doing little to no thinking about all the things that have to be changed when it comes to women's rights, reproduction, and child-raising.
Right now, a woman may easily be economically forced into an abortion. She's grown up with not too much information about birth control; she's not too good at being assertive about her rights; and now she winds up pregnant. Let's say she's got a high-school education. She's got two choices, basically: Have the baby, and try to raise it; or get an abortion. If she has the baby, she'll have to support it on whatever job she can get, which with a high-school diploma will probably be unskilled or semi-skilled at best. If she doesn't have sympathetic relatives who'll watch the child while she's at work, she probably won't be able to afford child care. She's almost certainly going to have to depend on the government for her child's medical care; and if she can't find child care, she'll have to go on welfare herself. College? Forget it. Career? Forget it. Her life has been put on hold, possibly forever, just because she had a baby. Whereas, if she had an abortion, none of that would happen; and most people are not saints.
That, folks, is not "pro-choice". It's "forced choice".
This problem is why making abortion illegal is not just as easy as passing a law, and why keeping it legal is not helping women any more than it's helping their children.
We need better education and better access to birth control, so people don't get pregnant in the first place unless they want to get pregnant.
We need better resources for women who do get pregnant--birth control isn't 100% effective, after all--so that they can raise their children and still go to school, have a career, and do all the things that they would do if they weren't mothers. Gender equality can't happen until the most essential parts of being a woman don't hold us back.
We need better adoption policies, so that women can give up children for adoption if they don't want to raise them themselves. Open adoptions go a long way.
Child care is important--both in terms of affordable day-care centers (which, incidentally, creates jobs), and in terms of supporting relatives who provide child care.
And we need to tell the women who need them about the resources that exist, and how to use them.
It is NOT as easy as passing a law. Even if you're pro-choice, you haven't got any good reason to be sitting back, satisfied that you've given "reproductive freedom", whatever that means, to the country's women, because what we have right now is a betrayal of a woman's very nature. Making it so hard to raise children that you have to kill your own fetus just to have a decent life is NOT women's rights. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
I also think that most pro-lifers (and, for that matter, most pro-choicers) are doing little to no thinking about all the things that have to be changed when it comes to women's rights, reproduction, and child-raising.
Right now, a woman may easily be economically forced into an abortion. She's grown up with not too much information about birth control; she's not too good at being assertive about her rights; and now she winds up pregnant. Let's say she's got a high-school education. She's got two choices, basically: Have the baby, and try to raise it; or get an abortion. If she has the baby, she'll have to support it on whatever job she can get, which with a high-school diploma will probably be unskilled or semi-skilled at best. If she doesn't have sympathetic relatives who'll watch the child while she's at work, she probably won't be able to afford child care. She's almost certainly going to have to depend on the government for her child's medical care; and if she can't find child care, she'll have to go on welfare herself. College? Forget it. Career? Forget it. Her life has been put on hold, possibly forever, just because she had a baby. Whereas, if she had an abortion, none of that would happen; and most people are not saints.
That, folks, is not "pro-choice". It's "forced choice".
This problem is why making abortion illegal is not just as easy as passing a law, and why keeping it legal is not helping women any more than it's helping their children.
We need better education and better access to birth control, so people don't get pregnant in the first place unless they want to get pregnant.
We need better resources for women who do get pregnant--birth control isn't 100% effective, after all--so that they can raise their children and still go to school, have a career, and do all the things that they would do if they weren't mothers. Gender equality can't happen until the most essential parts of being a woman don't hold us back.
We need better adoption policies, so that women can give up children for adoption if they don't want to raise them themselves. Open adoptions go a long way.
Child care is important--both in terms of affordable day-care centers (which, incidentally, creates jobs), and in terms of supporting relatives who provide child care.
And we need to tell the women who need them about the resources that exist, and how to use them.
It is NOT as easy as passing a law. Even if you're pro-choice, you haven't got any good reason to be sitting back, satisfied that you've given "reproductive freedom", whatever that means, to the country's women, because what we have right now is a betrayal of a woman's very nature. Making it so hard to raise children that you have to kill your own fetus just to have a decent life is NOT women's rights. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
I agree with all of this.
I'd like to add we would also need to educate men to be more responsible with their dicks, and stop raping women too. They need to wear a condom and stop impregnating women and running off. Two people make a baby, but look who gets to do all the real work with it? And then everyone wants to criticize the woman for getting pregnant,for not being a perfect mother or for getting an abortion.
I decided to have my baby, and I love her, but i had to deal with a lot of mistreatment while I was going to the doctor pregnant with no supportive husband or partner. Even in the hospital at birth they were disrespectful and condescending - nosey even. I was 26, not 16, but I was alone having a baby. I feel I received substandard care as a result. I had complications and an emergency c-section due to the medical team missing key symptoms of pre-eclampsia (for WEEKS). Even afterwards I was judged and treated like a second class citizen. I would never wish such a thing on another woman, and I will not judge a person for having an abortion.
That said, abortions are far too commonplace. I looked up the statistics:
Quote:
Why women have abortions
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).
Quote:
Likelihood of abortion:
An estimated 43% of all women will have at least 1 abortion by the time they are 45 years old. 47% of all abortions are performed on women who have had at least one previous abortion.
An estimated 43% of all women will have at least 1 abortion by the time they are 45 years old. 47% of all abortions are performed on women who have had at least one previous abortion.
I got the stats here: http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html
(noted that this may be a pro-life source, so possibly propaganda, but the stats are supported here: http://www.abortiontv.com/Misc/Abortion ... htm#United States)
We can do better than this. Currently, birth control pills and condoms are widely available and often free, but they are not being used, obviously. It is education that is lacking, and people really are , in 93% of the cases, using abortion as contraception.
Abortion *is* birth control. It controls birth. It is *not* contraception, as it does not prevent conception.
BTW, abortiontv is also one of the most biased propaganda sources on the net.
~Kate
It may be biased, but the same information is available at the CDC site- you just have to read through a lot more to get to these statistics. It doesn't mean we are not overusing this service.
20 Apr 2010, 12:45 am
ViperaAspis wrote:
Callista wrote:
I'm not seeing any impoliteness here, really.
I agree, the serious debaters are handling themselves... seriously.
But I would suggest a re-reading of post #1: IF you desire abortion you are a selfish, murdering scumbag. It's pretty clear; Poster #2 got it right away and so did I. I don't think conditional namecalling has a place here any more than direct assaults do. How would you feel if someone called you something offensive but couched it in such a way that it only applied to your subgroup? If anything, it's even more cowardly.
This is NOT okay. The name-calling should be removed from the original post. I have enough baggage to carry around without some snarky little know-it-all tossing off insults.
From my past observations, this sort of nonsense is fairly typical for poster #1.
And i'm not the only poster who has noticed that either. Others have called her out on this sort of crap in threads I didn't even participate in. And before anyone accuses me of making s**t up here, it would be easy enough to find the threads i'm referring to. I won't do it tonight, but since she's not the most prolific poster (with only 879 posts) in this group, it's not as if it would take me centuries to find them.
In any case....she's a self-righteous ideologue who likes to demonize anyone who doesn't share her saintly lifestyle or agree with her omniscient opinions.
I generally have no problem with prolifers. Most of them are well-intentioned folks who just happen to hold an opinion I don't agree with.
But when the few bad apples start up with this kind of idiocy, i'm not just going to lay back and take it.
Oh...and if anything i've said here qualifies as name-calling on my part, consider who drew first blood.
20 Apr 2010, 5:51 am
Callista wrote:
The right not to have a child if you don't want one is why I think birth control and adoption need to be easier to access. How many times do I have to say it?--This isn't me being against people having their rights; it's me saying that there's more than just one person's rights involved. If I didn't care about human rights, I'd be fine with abortion. It's not human rights that's the divisive issue; we all agree about those. It's the definition of "human" that makes the difference.
But for much of the pregnancy a fetus isn't a person. Banning late term abortions is one thing, but not allowing a woman to flush out something that doesn't even have a mind or feelings yet? Why?
As for 'human'...your hair, or eyes, are human. Please, don't tell me I have to give my hair strands that I pull out everyday while grooming, human rights..
_________________
'You're so cold, but you feel alive
Lay your hands on me, one last time' (Breaking Benjamin)
20 Apr 2010, 6:09 am
Horus wrote:
ViperaAspis wrote:
Callista wrote:
I'm not seeing any impoliteness here, really.
I agree, the serious debaters are handling themselves... seriously.
But I would suggest a re-reading of post #1: IF you desire abortion you are a selfish, murdering scumbag. It's pretty clear; Poster #2 got it right away and so did I. I don't think conditional namecalling has a place here any more than direct assaults do. How would you feel if someone called you something offensive but couched it in such a way that it only applied to your subgroup? If anything, it's even more cowardly.
This is NOT okay. The name-calling should be removed from the original post. I have enough baggage to carry around without some snarky little know-it-all tossing off insults.
From my past observations, this sort of nonsense is fairly typical for poster #1.
And i'm not the only poster who has noticed that either. Others have called her out on this sort of crap in threads I didn't even participate in. And before anyone accuses me of making s**t up here, it would be easy enough to find the threads i'm referring to. I won't do it tonight, but since she's not the most prolific poster (with only 879 posts) in this group, it's not as if it would take me centuries to find them.
In any case....she's a self-righteous ideologue who likes to demonize anyone who doesn't share her saintly lifestyle or agree with her omniscient opinions.
I generally have no problem with prolifers. Most of them are well-intentioned folks who just happen to hold an opinion I don't agree with.
But when the few bad apples start up with this kind of idiocy, i'm not just going to lay back and take it.
Oh...and if anything i've said here qualifies as name-calling on my part, consider who drew first blood.
You shouldn't be a hypocrite. You should accept that I have an opinion of my own.
Second of all, with articles such as these
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... life-.html
Do you really blame me for holding my opinions?
Regarding the insulting tone of my posts, I don't sugarcoat my opinions. I don't hate people for having differing opinions even though you clearly portrayed me as being that way. Some of my opinions have changed in the past so I don't claim to be an-all knowing entity. For example, some of my economic views are considerably different than they were months ago.
I've looked back at my original post and can see why you and others view it as insulting. I apologize for the insults but I will never apologize for holding my respective views. For people so intent on speaking their minds, you seem to have a problem when I do it myself.
20 Apr 2010, 6:29 am
Quote:
The right not to have a child if you don't want one is why I think birth control and adoption need to be easier to access. How many times do I have to say it?--This isn't me being against people having their rights; it's me saying that there's more than just one person's rights involved. If I didn't care about human rights, I'd be fine with abortion. It's not human rights that's the divisive issue; we all agree about those. It's the definition of "human" that makes the difference.
Fine, let's say the fetus is a human being - Therefore we have two human beings both of which presumably have rights - Now normally there is no right to use another person's body. If a child needs a kidney, and her father has two kidneys, one of which he is not using and could be used to save her life - the child cannot force the father to give her a kidney even though there is a parental relationship. Yet, we would say that a fetus, as a human being, gets to use a woman's body in a parasitic fashion, put her life and health at risk, cause her physical pain. Is that not giving the fetus more rights than the woman? Is that not forcing a woman, against her will to be a host to a parasite?
Yes, there needs to be greater access to birth control, responsible adoption practises and better sexual education. That does not eliminate the need for abortion. Also, we as a society are not in agreement as to what it is to be human - just because some consider a fetus a human being who should have greater rights than a living woman, does not make it a fact.
20 Apr 2010, 7:01 am
Celoneth wrote:
Quote:
The right not to have a child if you don't want one is why I think birth control and adoption need to be easier to access. How many times do I have to say it?--This isn't me being against people having their rights; it's me saying that there's more than just one person's rights involved. If I didn't care about human rights, I'd be fine with abortion. It's not human rights that's the divisive issue; we all agree about those. It's the definition of "human" that makes the difference.
Fine, let's say the fetus is a human being - Therefore we have two human beings both of which presumably have rights - Now normally there is no right to use another person's body. If a child needs a kidney, and her father has two kidneys, one of which he is not using and could be used to save her life - the child cannot force the father to give her a kidney even though there is a parental relationship. Yet, we would say that a fetus, as a human being, gets to use a woman's body in a parasitic fashion, put her life and health at risk, cause her physical pain. Is that not giving the fetus more rights than the woman? Is that not forcing a woman, against her will to be a host to a parasite?
Yes, there needs to be greater access to birth control, responsible adoption practises and better sexual education. That does not eliminate the need for abortion. Also, we as a society are not in agreement as to what it is to be human - just because some consider a fetus a human being who should have greater rights than a living woman, does not make it a fact.
Great post.
Making abortion illegal is every bit as much a curb on women's freedom and rights as it is to make it so hard to raise children that they would rather not have one. Not all women want abortions simply because of economic hardship. Some simply don't want a child, period.
_________________
'You're so cold, but you feel alive
Lay your hands on me, one last time' (Breaking Benjamin)
20 Apr 2010, 7:07 am
mechanicalgirl39 wrote:
Celoneth wrote:
Quote:
The right not to have a child if you don't want one is why I think birth control and adoption need to be easier to access. How many times do I have to say it?--This isn't me being against people having their rights; it's me saying that there's more than just one person's rights involved. If I didn't care about human rights, I'd be fine with abortion. It's not human rights that's the divisive issue; we all agree about those. It's the definition of "human" that makes the difference.
Fine, let's say the fetus is a human being - Therefore we have two human beings both of which presumably have rights - Now normally there is no right to use another person's body. If a child needs a kidney, and her father has two kidneys, one of which he is not using and could be used to save her life - the child cannot force the father to give her a kidney even though there is a parental relationship. Yet, we would say that a fetus, as a human being, gets to use a woman's body in a parasitic fashion, put her life and health at risk, cause her physical pain. Is that not giving the fetus more rights than the woman? Is that not forcing a woman, against her will to be a host to a parasite?
Yes, there needs to be greater access to birth control, responsible adoption practises and better sexual education. That does not eliminate the need for abortion. Also, we as a society are not in agreement as to what it is to be human - just because some consider a fetus a human being who should have greater rights than a living woman, does not make it a fact.
Great post.
Making abortion illegal is every bit as much a curb on women's freedom and rights as it is to make it so hard to raise children that they would rather not have one. Not all women want abortions simply because of economic hardship. Some simply don't want a child, period.
Sorry to repeat this but if you don't want a child period, isn't it better to have your tubes tied or at least get a norplant implant (using condoms at the same time)? I admit my first post was a bit extreme and I would justify abortion in the case of rape and when the mother's life or longterm health is in danger. However, I feel that most use it as a means of escaping responsibility for their own actions. In the case of eugenic abortions, it often stems from not wanting to be responsible for a "difficult child", disappointment that the baby won't be their trophy child, or hatred of who the child is projected to be.
20 Apr 2010, 7:19 am
I don't want an implant pumping out hormones.
I do plan to get surgically sterilized. At the moment, I'm single, so it isn't an issue.
And one, I don't see having an abortion as irresponsible. I think in many situations it's the most responsible thing you can do. Two, I don't care if it is 'escaping responsibility'. It is not society's place to punish a woman by forcing her to remain pregnant and give birth.
_________________
'You're so cold, but you feel alive
Lay your hands on me, one last time' (Breaking Benjamin)
20 Apr 2010, 7:28 am
mechanicalgirl39 wrote:
I don't want an implant pumping out hormones.
I do plan to get surgically sterilized. At the moment, I'm single, so it isn't an issue.
And one, I don't see having an abortion as irresponsible. I think in many situations it's the most responsible thing you can do. Two, I don't care if it is 'escaping responsibility'. It is not society's place to punish a woman by forcing her to remain pregnant and give birth.
I do plan to get surgically sterilized. At the moment, I'm single, so it isn't an issue.
And one, I don't see having an abortion as irresponsible. I think in many situations it's the most responsible thing you can do. Two, I don't care if it is 'escaping responsibility'. It is not society's place to punish a woman by forcing her to remain pregnant and give birth.
In my opinion, families should be closer knit and more supportive so that it's not the end of a woman's life if she has a baby in the middle of high school or college. She would have relatives to watch it when she goes to work ect. By that token, it must be very difficult to be single and pregnant with an unsupportive family and a boyfriend who doesn't want to take responsibility. By that I can see where you're coming from.
20 Apr 2010, 7:39 am
Quote:
And one, I don't see having an abortion as irresponsible. I think in many situations it's the most responsible thing you can do. Two, I don't care if it is 'escaping responsibility'. It is not society's place to punish a woman by forcing her to remain pregnant and give birth.
This exactly. Babies should be wanted, they shouldn't be a punishment or consequence for someone making the "wrong choice." If I wasn't celibate I probably would get sterilised but a lot of women who have abortions want children at some point in their lives or are already mothers - they just don't want a child at this point in their lives. As far as eugenic abortions go - I don't like the idea - but I'd rather have someone have an abortion than be a parent to a child they will resent or force into all sorts of horrible treatments in order to "cure" them and then reject them when the "cures" do not work. I think a lot of the talk of eugenic abortions is caused by people being ignorant, not understanding autism because all they see are examples portrayed by articles like the one timeisdead links to. Society needs more education and awareness, not more limits on rights.
20 Apr 2010, 9:57 am
Celoneth wrote:
Quote:
And one, I don't see having an abortion as irresponsible. I think in many situations it's the most responsible thing you can do. Two, I don't care if it is 'escaping responsibility'. It is not society's place to punish a woman by forcing her to remain pregnant and give birth.
This exactly. Babies should be wanted, they shouldn't be a punishment or consequence for someone making the "wrong choice." If I wasn't celibate I probably would get sterilised but a lot of women who have abortions want children at some point in their lives or are already mothers - they just don't want a child at this point in their lives. As far as eugenic abortions go - I don't like the idea - but I'd rather have someone have an abortion than be a parent to a child they will resent or force into all sorts of horrible treatments in order to "cure" them and then reject them when the "cures" do not work. I think a lot of the talk of eugenic abortions is caused by people being ignorant, not understanding autism because all they see are examples portrayed by articles like the one timeisdead links to. Society needs more education and awareness, not more limits on rights.
Myself, if I were pregnant, I think I would go to any lengths to destroy the thing in me. Even if it was injecting myself with turpentine, even if it was jumping off a roof. I would do it. I am a sentient girl with thoughts and emotions and dignity. Not a piece of machinery for making babies.
Yeah, it would be a great idea to force me to remain pregnant, and give birth to a stillborn mess from impact injury.
_________________
'You're so cold, but you feel alive
Lay your hands on me, one last time' (Breaking Benjamin)
