Donate Now

Topic Closed  Topic Closed
  New Poll  
my profile | directory login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Scarleteen Boards: 2000 - 2014 (Archive) » SCARLETEEN CENTRAL » Sexual Ethics and Politics » pro-choice vs. right-to-life (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: pro-choice vs. right-to-life
thoughtsonabortion
Neophyte
Member # 11651

Icon 1 posted      Profile for thoughtsonabortion     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by logic_grrl:
What this textbook is stating is that genetically, a zygote is capable of becoming a genetically-distinct human being. This does not state anything about its rights, moral or legal status.

And many people believe that a tiny bundle of a few cells is not equivalent to a sentient, conscious human being in terms of rights.



well, obviously it is not setting up legal status? that is up to us as humans to set up the laws to not kill other humans.

keep in mind the same logic was used by southerners, hitler, etc. first you dehumanize a group of humans , then you may "eliminate " them.

but back to the post, can you prove it is not a human ? or do you simply support the killing of some innocent humans?


Posts: 2 | From: erie,pa ,usa | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
thoughtsonabortion
Neophyte
Member # 11651

Icon 1 posted      Profile for thoughtsonabortion     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Miz Scarlet:
Another reminder: NUMEROUS posts tossed up in this thread by one user here have been deleted. Not only is spamming the boards not acceptable within the user guidelines, as noted on several pages of the site, outlinking to numerous antichoice organizations, which house gross misinformation, is also not acceptable.

Scarleteen is a prochoice site, as stated clearly on our front page. Discussion of personal choices and feelings regarding all of our personal choices is totally acceptable. Using Scarleteen as a soapbox for antichoice canvassing is not.


wow, what are you afraid of?


Posts: 2 | From: erie,pa ,usa | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cupcake
Activist
Member # 4356

Icon 1 posted      Profile for cupcake     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
They have rights, they choose to use them, and make this a pro-choice area. When you came in here, you agreed to Guidelines, and are expected to abide by them.

This isn't anything new.


Posts: 433 | From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Milke
Activist
Member # 961

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Milke     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
It's not okay for one user to post under multiple user names. The Guidelines you agreed to when you signed up here said that. You know what you are and are not allowed to do, and have also been given reminders to that effect that really shouldn't be necessary. You must follow the Guidelines if you wish to retain posting priveleges.

------------------
Milke, SSBD, RATS, TMNTP

But now is a chance to shine
And have the pleasure of saying what you mean
Have the pleasure of meaning what you sing


Posts: 5122 | From: I *came* from the land of ice and snow | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heather
Executive Director & Founder
Member # 3

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Heather     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
wow, what are you afraid of?

Not having the right to my own body, flatly, and not having the right to make the choices I feel are best for myself and my potential children. Of the child poverty and mortality rate continuing to climb in this country, especially for those who aren't middle-class and white, especially when we have the highest rate of child mortality (those'd be to-term actual children, mind you, not idealized theoretical ones) of all the industrialized nations despite being the richest of them. Of men controlling the rights of a process in women's bodies they will never experience. Of being forced into being a walking baby factory by others who have no right to make choices for anyone's body but their own. Of sexual health services beyond abortion being cut and curtailed, such as access to birth control and sex education, as it has already begun to happen due to antichoice lobbies. Wow, indeed. You?

But in regard to the statement you quoted, while I wouldn't say "afraid," what I am not willing to do is pay for antichoice canvassing at my own organization.

As this is a private organization, that is my right. Per the registration guidelines, you need to respect it to retain the ability to post. It is not up for discussion, nor are the guidelines.

As well, harassment via email will get you reported to your ISP lickety-split.

------------------
Heather Corinna
Editor and Founder, Scarleteen

My epitaph should read: "She worked herself into this ground."
-- Kay Bailey Hutchinson

[This message has been edited by Miz Scarlet (edited 01-29-2003).]


Posts: 68290 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MarvellousPurple
Activist
Member # 8776

Icon 1 posted      Profile for MarvellousPurple     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
keep in mind the same logic was used by southerners, hitler, etc.

i'm not trying to add fuel to the fire, but hey, as a southerner (yes, my location says rhode island but that's because i go to college here, i'm really from virginia) i take offense. not only was slavery not specifically a southern problem (the practice of slavery has been going on for thousands of years), but most southerners didn't even own slaves. am i saying it was justifiable? no, of course not. but the problem was much more widespread than you make it sound; please don't pintpoint it on one specific group of people, many of whom don't fit your description.

sorry about going off on a tangent; i'll get off of my soapbox now.


Posts: 475 | From: Back in Providence, RI | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lemming
Scarleteen Volunteer
Member # 33

Icon 4 posted      Profile for lemming     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Flex89, had you read the rest of the comments in this thread before replying, you would have noticed this very important point:

Scarleteen is a pro-choice site.

Why We Are Committed to Reproductive Choice

Please read this article and consider yourself warned:

from the guidelines you agreed to when you signed up:

quote:
When posting, you are expected to be respectful of your fellow posters and our staff, and to use language which is clear, which is not salacious or overly explicit, and which encourages intelligent, safe and mature discussion of the issues at hand... harassment of any sort of other users and/or staff via the boards or e-mail (and that includes religious proselytizing or antichoice canvassing)

------------------
Laurel Lemming
Scarleteen Advocate

"Maypole/The ties that bind you will unwind/To free me one day/And everything decays..." - XTC, "The Wheel and the Maypole"


Posts: 3156 | From: Austin, Texas | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
logic_grrl
Scarleteen Volunteer
Member # 8067

Icon 1 posted      Profile for logic_grrl     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
but back to the post, can you prove it is not a human ? or do you simply support the killing of some innocent humans?

Personally, I think there is a big moral difference between a tiny bundle of a few cells with no capacity for thought or feeling (which is what a newly-fertilized egg is), and a human being.

Scientists believe that a developing fetus doesn't have the capacity to experience pain or suffering (its brain simply isn't developed enough) until relatively late in gestation - probably well after the legal limit for abortion.

And remember that 90% of abortions take place within the first trimester, at the end of which the fetus is just 3 inches long.

I believe that human beings matter and have rights because they have consciousness, thoughts and feelings - not just because of their genetics.

Genetically, a fertilized egg is indeed human tissue. It has the potential to become another human being - but it isn't one yet, or anywhere near one. Saying it is a human being is rather like saying that an acorn is an oak tree.

If you're saying that it should have full human rights simply because it's genetically human tissue - for that matter, a single sperm is also a human cell. A skin scraping from the inside of my cheek is genetically human! (And if human cloning ever becomes viable, then that skin scraping would also have the potential to become another human being!)

But we don't consider that they should have human rights.


Posts: 6944 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sunset_Rose
Activist
Member # 10181

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Sunset_Rose     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Not entirely sure where this should go, but its revelent, so i thought I would post it here.

I am pro-choice, for all of the many valid reasons that have been stated by people throughout this post.

My sister, however, is pro-life. I have no problem with her choosing not to have an abortion, thats her right. The problem comes when she tries to apply her choice to me.
We are extremly close, and she has always been completly supportive of me, but she says that the one thing that she couldn't forgive me for would be having an abortion, because it is a sin and its wrong.
I wish there was a way I could make things better between us about this issue, or at least try to make her understand my point of view.
I'm really not sure how to approach this, and
if anyone could help me with this, I would be extremly grateful.


Posts: 123 | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Confused boy
Activist
Member # 1964

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Confused boy     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
We had a pro-life campaigner talk to us at school. Fortunately, he did not give a propagandist anti-abortion rant but marshalled a number of well developed arguments than encouraged a healthy intellectual skepticism and debate. His organisation also provides support and shelter for young mothers which at least shows that they care about life after giving birth as well as before.

One interesting argument he put forward was that if abortions should be legal to prevent dangerous back alley attempts, then child molestation should be legal to reduce the attempts at kidnapping and murdering of children. Child molestation could be legalised but only in a safe environment. Of course, that still requires a leap of faith that an embryo is as much alive as a child. Wish I had argued that at the time. You always remember what to say after the event. Oh well.

------------------
'An Anarchist is a Liberal with a bomb' Trotsky


Posts: 711 | From: England | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heather
Executive Director & Founder
Member # 3

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Heather     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
(MInd you, statistically speaking, kidnapped children are very, very rarely the same children who are molested or murdered. The great majority of cases of child molestation and violence happen right within the family. So, smart as that argument may have seemed, it's pretty fallacious.)
Posts: 68290 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Whatsthatmommy
Activist
Member # 7869

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Whatsthatmommy     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I am prochoice. I am that becuase personally, as a male, I HAVE NO RIGHT to say what a woman can or cannot do with her body. I think there shouldnt need to be abortion, everyone should just live in happy land but that doesnt happen.

------------------
Get close to your friends, but closer to your enemies.


Posts: 69 | From: USA | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gladys
Neophyte
Member # 11551

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Gladys     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Erm, I don't see the parallel between child molestation and abortion.

I see it as an issue of bodily sovereignty. Denial of abortion rights feels a little like, well, slavery to me. Or rape. I'm not a baby machine. If I don't want to have something done to my body, I'm not having it done. If I don't want to give blood or a kidney to save somebody's life, I'm not going to be forced to do it. If I don't want to give my uterus to save somebody's life, I don't want to be forced to do that.

I think people sometimes fail to distinguish between what is immoral and what is illegal. They're not always the same thing, and they shouldn't be.

quote:
keep in mind the same logic was used by southerners, hitler, etc. first you dehumanize a group of humans , then you may "eliminate " them.

Uh, nnnnno. Not the same logic. First of all, the idea that a ten-week-old foetus is a human being is a pretty recent one. It's not conclusively backed up in the Bible or anywhere else.

Secondly, no one's talking about eliminating all foetuses, or eliminating foetuses in a systematic manner. The entire point of the pro-choice position is that abortion should be a private individual choice, not something decided by governments or committees.

And doesn't it dehumanize a woman to tell her that she is less important than the foetus she is carrying, that her body is public property, her mind and soul are less important than her uterus, that it doesn't matter what she wants?

[This message has been edited by Gladys (edited 03-05-2003).]


Posts: 10 | From: Nova Scotia, Canada | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dzuunmod
Scarleteen Volunteer
Member # 226

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dzuunmod     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
In news on this matter, the U.S. Senate just voted to ban partial-birth/late-term abortions.

Banning of a practice that shouldn't have been around in the first place, or the beginning of long-term assault on abortion rights? You decide.

------------------
Visualise success, but don't believe your eyes.
-The New Pornographers, Jackie


Posts: 1515 | From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BruinDan
Activist
Member # 3072

Icon 3 posted      Profile for BruinDan     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I personally think it won't matter either way--in all likelihood, this will be moot before too long. Bills like these are fairly well automatically challenged in court before they can take effect, and lawsuits have already been drawn up on this bill before it has even been signed into law.

The main problem as I see it is that there is no escape clause in cases where the woman's health is in jeapordy. They've put in a handy-dandy "this procedure is okay when the mother's life is in danger," but they do not have anything for "lesser" cases when the health (but not necessarily the survival) of the mother is at stake.

Aside from my personal feeling that this doesn't suffice, the prevailing legal opinion now is that this one probably won't pass legal muster. The Supreme Court will have to approve this new law once it is signed, and this same Court struck down the State of Nebraska's ban on late-term/partial-birth abortion because it also failed to include a "health of the mother" exception. The Court will no doubt look over this new law with a fine-toothed comb and assess just how close it is to the Nebraska law it struck down a while ago. If it is deemed to be too similar to that one, it too will be struck down. And that option has my bet for now.

Bear in mind that this Court is not at all bashful about telling Congress that they've got it wrong. There have been numerous occasions in recent years when the Court has nullified legislation on the basis that it was somehow unconstitutional or otherwise improper. There have been bashful Benches in the past who have had a more hands-off approach in terms of reviewing new laws as soon as they've taken effect, but this is not one of those Benches. The nine justices we have now harbor no qualms about performing the fine art of judicial review, so this case should be a good one to watch for a while.

------------------
BruinDan, "Number Three," PBOM

Beware the naked man who offereth you his pants.


Posts: 2727 | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bobolink
Activist
Member # 1386

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Bobolink         Edit/Delete Post 
Interestingly, the law may not be enforceable. In medicine, there is no such term as a "partial-birth abortion". In the legislation, the term is not defined. The Senate may have just outlawed something that does not exist.

------------------
We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.

- Albert Einstein


Posts: 3442 | From: Stirling, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
UKgirl
Activist
Member # 11280

Icon 1 posted      Profile for UKgirl     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
from the article:
"The legislation bans the destruction of the foetus when its head or a significant part of its body is outside of the mother"

does anyone else find it odd that whether or not a foetus should be destroyed would be determined by its location?

I think this is definately a thin-end-of-the-wedge situation. In the article it said that various people saw this as the first step to "building a culture of life in America". These people are hoping that this is the begining of a process to further limit abortion rights in the US, and I for one find this very worrying.


Posts: 166 | From: London, England | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Milke
Activist
Member # 961

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Milke     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Er, no, that doesn't seem odd at all. An embryo or fetus that's still in its mother's body is dependent on her, and considered a part of her. A child (because once a fertilized ovum because viable and leaves the uterus, it's technically no longer a fetus) is its own person as soon as it leaves its mother. I'm not sure how much clearer that could be.

I also think that thinking globally and acting locally still has its place. Rather than debating foreign law, why not do some volunteer work in your own area? It's not that you're not welcome to express your opinions here, but rather, I'm sensing some frustration that you might be able to work on remedying.

------------------
Milke, with an L, SSBD, RATS, TMNTP

Anyone perfect must be lying, anything easy has its cost
Anyone plain can be lovely, anyone loved can be lost


Posts: 5122 | From: I *came* from the land of ice and snow | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
UKgirl
Activist
Member # 11280

Icon 1 posted      Profile for UKgirl     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
er, no. I'm quite happy with the situation over here. we have free abortion, not on demand but it usually works out as though it is, a fairly insignificant "pro-life" movement, and as far as i've heard no one in the government is trying to restrict abortion law. this is concern for others.

I'm no expert on these things, but the article said that this procedure was usually used on 5-6 month pregnancies (is that right?), what is the chance of this life surviving if its born at this point?


Posts: 166 | From: London, England | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
UKgirl
Activist
Member # 11280

Icon 1 posted      Profile for UKgirl     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
think i've kinda found the answer to my own question. In the UK abortion is legal up to the 24th week (but also later if the woman's health (mental or physical) is in danger or if the baby would be born severely disabled). the reasoning behind this is that after this time the baby be a viable life, meaning it would have a chance of living if it were born at this stage in pregnancy. Following this logic the 5-month pregnancies that this procedure is used on are not viable lives, if they were born they would probably not survive. I don't see how the location of the fetus effects this.

even if all this weren't the case I would still be against this ban in the case of women who's health is in danger. It may sound selfish but I would put my own welfare before that of something which in all important mental ways is barely human.

[This message has been edited by UKgirl (edited 03-15-2003).]


Posts: 166 | From: London, England | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom
Neophyte
Member # 12206

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I am pro-choice in the sense that women have many choices.

1. Dont have sex
2. If you do have sex, use protection
3. If you do get pregnant you can keep the
baby or
4. Give it up for adoption

The opposite of pro-life is pro-death


Posts: 4 | From: Jasper, Indiana USA | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
UKgirl
Activist
Member # 11280

Icon 1 posted      Profile for UKgirl     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Hmmm, yes, getting pregnant is just like "ooh, I'm pregnant! Look theres the baby!" oh no, wait a minute, it isn't. this isn't as simple as creating a life and "puff!" theres a baby. we are talking about going through a pregnancy. this is not just a minor disruption, it is a BIG THING (whether it is a big positive or negative thing depends on the situation of the woman). part of the reason for abortions is that women should not be forced to go through with a pregnancy they do not want. this is not a vindictive atteck on "the child". I'm sure if there was some way for the foetus to live without the woman (transplantation into a woman who wanted a baby?) some women would be up for that.

on the other hand I think you underestimate the possible anguish involved in a) caring for and raising a child you do not want or b)giving that child up for adoption and knowing there is your baby out there (at this point it is a baby, when most women have abortions it is very early in pregnancy, and the foetus is something quite different) that is yours that you cannot know about. I'm not saying these things never work out, they often do, and they are valid options. but I believe in the presence of the option to abort for those women that keeping the baby or adoption would not be OK for.


Posts: 166 | From: London, England | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Milke
Activist
Member # 961

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Milke     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The opposite of following the Guidelines generally results in losing posting priveleges. Be respectful to other users. Don't try to force opinions on those who disagree. And do check this out while you're at it, to get some idea what Scarleteen's all about. I realise that a lot of commonly held beliefs here do no match your own. You have the choice of civilly accepting that, or finding another site that better suits you.

------------------
Milke, with an L, SSBD, RATS, TMNTP

Word up!


Posts: 5122 | From: I *came* from the land of ice and snow | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
religously concious
Neophyte
Member # 12233

Icon 1 posted      Profile for religously concious     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Hello, in response to your question I am totally against the whole thing. as my name implies, I am an extremly religous person, and all types of contraception are aginst my religion (Roman Catholicism). And thewthing about unwanted children is nonsense. Every year 500,000 adoptive parents are dissapointed because someone has an abortion. It is also a very unsafe procedure. Women have DIEd because of it, and there is a lot of mental as well as physical scarring.The person talking about over population reminds me of Margaret Sanger ( Lady who started Planned Parenthood). And I know this is a pro-choice site, no need to remind me, but I think it is unfair to shout down those of us who DO think pro-choice is wrong. Lastly, I am a guy,and any of you who plan to use this against me, men have as much choice about this as women.

Best regards,
Crazy Polish New Yorker


Posts: 24 | From: Buffalo,Ny,USA | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
religously concious
Neophyte
Member # 12233

Icon 1 posted      Profile for religously concious     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Hello, in response to your question I am totally against the whole thing. as my name implies, I am an extremly religous person, and all types of contraception are aginst my religion (Roman Catholicism). And thewthing about unwanted children is nonsense. Every year 500,000 adoptive parents are dissapointed because someone has an abortion. It is also a very unsafe procedure. Women have DIEd because of it, and there is a lot of mental as well as physical scarring.The person talking about over population reminds me of Margaret Sanger ( Lady who started Planned Parenthood). And I know this is a pro-choice site, no need to remind me, but I think it is unfair to shout down those of us who DO think pro-choice is wrong. Lastly, I am a guy,and any of you who plan to use this against me, men have as much choice about this as women.

Best regards,
Crazy Polish New Yorker


Posts: 24 | From: Buffalo,Ny,USA | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
UKgirl
Activist
Member # 11280

Icon 1 posted      Profile for UKgirl     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by religously concious:

It is also a very unsafe procedure. Women have DIEd because of it

and women have died in childbirth.
and when abortion was illegal women died attempting unsafe illegal ones.

your point is?


Posts: 166 | From: London, England | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heather
Executive Director & Founder
Member # 3

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Heather     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
No, men do NOT have as much choice in this issue as women, because you cannot become pregnant.

You may or may not like that biological fact, but it is so nonetheless. That given, it is up to each woman how involved in the choice process a given man is with her pregnancy. Legally and practically.

Someone who is pro-life, in other words, who staunchly supports childbirth thinking it THEIR best option, is more than welcome to post those views here. What will NOT be tolerated is antichoice posting or lobbying, in the same vein that we would not support a poster coming in and telling a teenager of legal age that they have no right to decide to have sex, when in fact, they very much do have that right. It is our right to stand that line because you do not pay for this service, nor is it publicly funded, and part of our mission as an organization is to support these choices as just that: individual choices.

More women have died in childbirth than during safe, legal abortion. That has always been the case and will likely continue to. That fact does not make abortion an ideal choice for everyone -- n the same way that woman having complications or deaths due to abortion (though in far lesser numbers) does not make childbirth an ideal choice for everyone. As well, parenting and adoption also carry loads of emotional and physical hardships. There is no reliable data which supports abortion having any more that the other two options. I still have yet to even find, in fact, a single woman who will write a piece for us on putting a child up for adoption, because every one we find says it's just too painful to talk about. As well, I'm not sure where you're getting your adoption stats, but while I wholly support adoption (heck, I'd like to adopt myself someday), I also know that the reality is that there are hundreds of thousands of children in need of families and in the foster care system, most often those who were not up for adoption right at infancy, and/or who are minorities or have special needs. The AFCARS site through the US department of Health and Human Services keeps those statistics handy and updates them each year. Given they list that over the last few years over 100,000 children remain waiting to be adopted and hundreds of thousands more in foster care, either your figures are bunk, or the parents you state are waiting aren't just waiting for any child in need: they're doing the usual and waiting for the "right sort" of children, generally meaning perfect, white newborns, and often perfect, white newborn girls. And that has a whole lot less to do with wanting to help children who need families than it does social status and a host of other queasies.

If all types of contraception, sex before marriage and freedom of reproductive choice stands counter to your beliefs, I am not sure, honestly, what you are seeking out at Scarleteen.

------------------
Heather Corinna
Editor and Founder, Scarleteen

My epitaph should read: "She worked herself into this ground."
-- Kay Bailey Hutchinson

[This message has been edited by Miz Scarlet (edited 03-17-2003).]


Posts: 68290 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
logic_grrl
Scarleteen Volunteer
Member # 8067

Icon 1 posted      Profile for logic_grrl     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
You have the right to hold whatever religious views you want; what is not okay is trying to force them onto other people. I suggest you have a look at the guidelines.

It is also not okay to post inaccurate or misleading information.

Legal abortion is a very safe procedure - in fact, the risks are less than those of carrying a pregnancy to term.

As for prospective adoptive parents being disappointed - in fact, there are currently huge numbers of children desperately in need of adoptive homes. They don't get adopted simply because the majority of prospective adopters are only interested in healthy newborns, and aren't interested in older children or children with special needs (who are sometimes seen as "damaged goods").


Posts: 6944 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
religously concious
Neophyte
Member # 12233

Icon 1 posted      Profile for religously concious     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
OK, I see the point here. i actually didn't understand the guidelines but now they are made more clear to me. Thanks a lot. Of course it is their legal and free right to have sex WHEN and HOW they choose, but are we not forgetting something else? The REASON for unwanted pregnancy is not being READY for intercourse since some people wish to have intercourse at a very young age.
Best regards,
Crazy Polish New Yorker

Posts: 24 | From: Buffalo,Ny,USA | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
UKgirl
Activist
Member # 11280

Icon 1 posted      Profile for UKgirl     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by religously concious:
The REASON for unwanted pregnancy is not being READY for intercourse since some people wish to have intercourse at a very young age.

thats really simplistic. abortions are not all carried out on young women. I for one know a woman who had an abortion in her late 30s. she already had four daughters, accidentally got pregnant, and could not aford a 5th.


Posts: 166 | From: London, England | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
religously concious
Neophyte
Member # 12233

Icon 1 posted      Profile for religously concious     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Yes Uk, you are absolutely right, but (maybe I have been exposed to a lot of propaganda or something) in my experience the majority of abortions are carried out by young women. Now, I know that is not always the situation but that is a trend I have noticed. I forgot to add something in my last post. Yes, I DO have a choice to what happens to MY child. It takes two to create a baby,like it or not. But I also understand it is the woman who's belly gets big, who has the cravings and the morning sickness, who endures the labor, but we men should have a say in this too. And I know MizScarlet is gonna let into me on this but I have to get this off my chest.
Best regards,
Crazy Polish New Yorker

Posts: 24 | From: Buffalo,Ny,USA | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
UKgirl
Activist
Member # 11280

Icon 1 posted      Profile for UKgirl     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
the thing is about paternal rights with abortion is that of the two people involved one has to have the final say if they disagree. yes, its horrid for a man if his partner aborts a foetus he wants, but I think, as do a lot of other people, that it is far worse for a woman to be forced by a partner to continue with a pregnancy she doesn't want.
Posts: 166 | From: London, England | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heather
Executive Director & Founder
Member # 3

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Heather     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
If that were the case, then only women in their teens would be aborting or adopting.

But that is very much NOT the case. In fact, the great majority of women who abort are between 20 and 30. The minority of abortions are to teenagers. About 20% of women who abort are married. Pertaining to you, as many Catholic women have abortions as women who are not Catholic (19941995 AGI).

(Really, if you want to argue this in a sound way, I'd earnestly suggest you take the time to do some real, viable research.)

Not all women want children (or more children than they already have), want to be single parents, can healthfully BE pregnant, want to remain pregnant, can afford to remain pregnant healthfully, or feel that a given time is the right time for them to bear children, either to adopt or parent them. As well, no birth control method is 100% reliable, and there is no writ which state that all women must agree to pregnancy if they agree to intercourse. Pregnancy may occur with intercourse, but it does not have to, nor do all women wish it to. Very, very many women do not. And again, they have that right. And many of them are plenty ready to be sexually active: those who abort simply choose not to remain pregnant.

The reason for unwanted pregnancy is that intercourse can create pregnancy, no birth control method is 100% reliable, that human beings are fallible and that childbearing and parenting is a life-altering thing for women and for a given woman that being pregnant or parenting may not be desired, for any number of reasons.

------------------
Heather Corinna
Editor and Founder, Scarleteen

My epitaph should read: "She worked herself into this ground."
-- Kay Bailey Hutchinson


Posts: 68290 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
UKgirl
Activist
Member # 11280

Icon 1 posted      Profile for UKgirl     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
found this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,809069,00.html

real women talking about their abortions


Posts: 166 | From: London, England | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
UKgirl
Activist
Member # 11280

Icon 1 posted      Profile for UKgirl     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
oh, and this:
http://www.observer.co.uk/review/story/0,6903,476313,00.html

[This message has been edited by UKgirl (edited 03-17-2003).]


Posts: 166 | From: London, England | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

  New Poll   Open Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Get the Whole Story! Go Home to SCARLETEEN: Sex Ed for the Real World | Privacy Statement

Copyright 1998, 2014 Heather Corinna/Scarleteen
Scarleteen.com: Providing comprehensive sex education online to teens and young adults worldwide since 1998

Information on this site is provided for educational purposes. It is not meant to and cannot substitute for advice or care provided by an in-person medical professional. The information contained herein is not meant to be used to diagnose or treat a health problem or disease, or for prescribing any medication. You should always consult your own healthcare provider if you have a health problem or medical condition.

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3