Let's talk about silly topics, like abortion!

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_abortion_ban

Obama has reversed the abortion funding policy by executive order. To quote the link above:

The Bush policy had banned U.S. taxpayer money, usually in the form of Agency for International Development funds, from going to international family planning groups that either offer abortions or provide information, counseling or referrals about abortion. The rule also had prohibited federal funding for groups that lobby to legalize abortion or promote it as a family planning method.

Godless hippie liberals like myself have rejoiced, fascist control-freak conservatives are in tears.

But no, seriously, what are your views on abortion? I am 100% pro choice for the first 2 trimesters, it's not so simple for me after that. Allow me to explain.

A fetus is a part of the mother's body. It's a group of cells that, if removed from the mother, cannot survive. Therefore, as part of her body, it's nobody else's goddamned business what she does with it. If she wants to pull it out and barbecue it, I support her right to do so. I'd wonder about her sanity, but that's another matter.

Anyway, it's in the third trimester that I find myself in a gray area. The fetus can and sometimes does survive if taken from the womb by this time. Therefore it's no longer just a part of her body. It's become an independent organism, a human being.

If there's complications and the mother's life is in danger, I favor abortion rights in that case. To paraphrase Bill Hicks, I don't think we should take people off our love list just because they reach a certain age.

If a woman just changes her mind, or discovers then that the baby will be deformed or sick in some way, I find it harder to support that choice. I think technology can provide the answer. If we can find a way to safely take a third trimester fetus out of the womb so it can continue to grow and develop, and the child is then put up for adoption, I'm all for that. That way a woman isn't forced to carry a fetus to term that she doesn't want, and a organism that I consider to be a human being isn't put to death. Until then, I'd rather err on the side of the mother.

Your views?

Comments

[hunterkirk.livejournal.com]

I am just interested if how Obama plans to "Reduce the number of Abortions" by dumping countless tax dollars in the Abortion industry? Or did he simple lie... again.

[lucazzo.livejournal.com]

The "abortion industry" tends to be more involved with educating people to use safer sex methods.

Educate people on how to prevent pregnancies, and you reduce abortions.

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/01/21/how-to-stump-anti-abortionists-with-one-question/

[pantsu.livejournal.com]

That's silly. If abortion were to be illegal, why would anti-abortionists such as myself hesitate in concluding that illegal activities should be punished accordingly? I've never met anybody who would be stupid enough to get stumped on such an easy hypothetical question.

[savagemind.livejournal.com]

I'd like to rent some of that person's genius for a few hours.

[lucazzo.livejournal.com]

I concur wholeheartedly. First trimester, I've absolutely no qualms. Second I'm rather split. Third I personally oppose, but I think it up to the woman if she would want to go ahead or not.

[hunterkirk.livejournal.com]

Hey why are you against the right of women to choose! After all Obama led the way in this he approves of abortion up to 12 hours after birth.. why cant you be so enlightened?

[sergeantbrother.livejournal.com]

Personally, I don't see it as a question of abortion, rather one of tax payers dollars. In essence, I think that the abortion debate clouds the discussion of whether or not we should be paying for this particularly thing. I wouldn't approve of tax payers dollars going to encourage abortion or to discourage it, particularly in other nations. Then again, I suppose an abortion now can save money in the long run on welfare, social services, population pressures, environmental destruction, crime, medical care, or any other of the myriad consequences of too many people - particularly unwanted children.

regarding the issue of abortion itself, I used to be pretty strictly pro-life and I still oppose abortion to some degree. I do suspect, though, that its just a law has probably become unenforceable, largely because of the existence of abortive drugs. These days, I don't have much of a problem with early term abortions before the fetus has formed a nervous system or any human-like characteristics.

[paintmeamovie.livejournal.com]

Its not "for abortion" its for places that offer that IN ADDITION to other BC services. which, with funding, will seriously lessen the amount of abortions performed.

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

Political wankage. I doubt it seriously affects the number of abortions being performed.

[sergeantbrother.livejournal.com]

I agree with this, just throwing a crumb to his supporters.

[pantsu.livejournal.com]

I oppose abortion for a reason that strikes many as being odd, but nonetheless it steers clear away from religion, as it should.
I've always been under the impression that human beings do not deserve or have the fundamental right to have access to special reproductive treatment under normal circumstances, ie. a normal pregnancy with no complications and under the household of a capable family.
Abortion is legal because it was deemed protected under the right to privacy, which I think is a very flawed conclusion. But abortions are declining in the U.S., which could mean one of many things, but all in all its decisive deduction could accurately be described as "getting better." Personally, I think America is at a stable and acceptable place, abortion-wise - the rate is still very high, considering between one out of three and one out of two women get abortions performed before the age of 45, I believe, but it is going down, which is generally considered a good sign above all else. So as such, I think it's preposterous that the abortion lobby, Planned Parenthood included, would dare ask for or promote "more freedom of choice." The restrictions we have now aren't suppressive at all; a bit discouraging, perhaps, but nothing is stopping a determined woman from getting an abortion unless she is X months along, and that's an acceptable proposal for most.
Women have access to abortions. We have access to birth control, including condoms, IUDs, pills - the list goes on. What more does the abortion lobby want?
Furthermore, places like Planned Parenthood are notorious for doing their job poorly. their job is to encourage women to look at all the choices available, but many have been caught, even recently, pushing for abortions and encouraging white lies to get there. They aren't doing a very good job at accurately describing all choices and the benefits and hindrances of each, which is supposed to be their goal. I believe Planned Parenthood and other related organisations need to have more restrictions, not abortions themselves, because they're not helping or liberating women by lying to them or by pushing one choice over the other - if anything, they're hurting them.

I also think it's ridiculous that this was one of the first things Obama decided to do. His intentions and his priorities are bass ackwards.

[rrainey.livejournal.com]

People just have different opinions about abortion. I'm for it, but not because of a woman's right to choose, but because I don't believe a baby should come into the world not wanted. A baby like that is not going to have a great chance. As far as the birth control goes, the argument for abortion is not, "I love to kill unborn babies!" Abortion is just the last source that is available to women. This is for women who have been rape (I don't think a woman, especially someone who is not sexually active should be on the pill "just in case" something bad happens.) and for girls who don’t have many options to birth control, base on their situation. EX: You may be different, but a lot people who opposed abortion also opposed any form of birth control, especially for teen girls. Many teen girls are just told to stray away from sex and are not given much information about birth control. Thus, they have sex (because they are growing up and things like this tend to happen), get pregnant, and then are left without many options afterwards. If anyone is hurting the women, it is people who are promoting abstinence as the only birth control. Once people stop being pretentious and let people be aware of all the birth control options that are available, and then abortion won't be a problem.
As far as this being one of the first things that Obama decided to do, does not mean his priorities are wrong. It is basic strategy to get the little stuff out of the way so he can put all his energy on the big issues at hand.

Prediction: The OP will get 150 comments

[verytwistedmind.livejournal.com]

Disclaimer:
I am a regeristered Republican.
I believe Roe Vs Wade should be overturned. It was bad law.
I am pro-choice on the state level.

My response to this very important issue.
As far as this article goes. Here's where I have a problem with it because it's international. Do we have to pay for other countries to kill babies? Can't they do that themselves?

We are in the middle of a economic crissis. Our hard working government employees have had their salaries frozen. We're dumping billions of dollars into stimulas packages. Yet we can still aford to give away money to kill babies?

Can we just bomb thos countries and cut their population down? I'm sure we have a few biological weapons we aren't using if you're concerned about infrastructions.

I'm all for killing babies (I believe abortion should be legal up until the 250 trimester....or however old Ted Kennedy is. but I don't want to pay for it.

Re: Prediction: The OP will get 150 comments

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

Bombs are more expensive than abortions. Fail.

[evil-admiral.livejournal.com]

I am not a woman, and I cannot get pregnant. So I have no right to tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies. Leave abortion as an option.

The only safe-sex is informed-sex.

[pantsu.livejournal.com]

You still have the right to an opinion.
Furthermore, if you want to go on the notion that a man can't tell a woman what to do with her body, you have to remember that under this, nobody can tell a woman what to do with her body, regardless of her gender.

The reason abortion is even an issue is because of the foetus in question, not the woman. If a foetus is alive, it's no longer about telling a woman what to do with her body. It's telling her she can't impede on somebody else's body.

[ellie-kay.livejournal.com]

It's a group of cells that, if removed from the mother, cannot survive.

I wouldn't classify something that has a heartbeat as a "group of cells." Also--if you set an infant on a table and leave it there, it won't survive. Should I be justified in killing it if I want to?

Anyway, it's in the third trimester that I find myself in a gray area. The fetus can and sometimes does survive if taken from the womb by this time.

A friend of mine had her baby extremely prematurely--near the end of her fifth month. She's a happy healthy two-year-old right now.

That way a woman isn't forced to carry a fetus to term that she doesn't want

There's an easy preventative measure to this situation--it's called DON'T FREAKING HAVE SEX IF YOU CAN'T DEAL WITH THE POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES. It's not that hard. I somehow magically went 23 years of my life without having sex and my husband is the only man I've done it with. Yeah, call me a prude, whatever. It's called keep it in your damn pants, whore. Haha, sorry about that, but I think it's immature and irresponsible to take part in something and then shirk the responsibility of dealing with the consequences.

[rrainey.livejournal.com]

"DON'T FREAKING HAVE SEX IF YOU CAN'T DEAL WITH THE POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES."
LOL! Yeah, my cousin who was raped and had abortion sure could have used your advice! As far as YOU being able to go 23 years without sex, guess what? NOT EVERYBODY IS YOU! Everybody has their own situations and own problems, and I would suggest to take your head out of your ass and see that. BTW-a child is not a consequence, is is a fucking human being. A child should not be brought into the world base on consequence, but because it was wanted. There are things worse then death, and it is more cruel to bring a child into the world not wanted.

[rrainey.livejournal.com]

It is a consequence base on action. But it is not a consequence base on, "you had sex, now deal with it." A person who does not want a child, but does have one, treats the child as if they were a punishment. Techinally, a child is a consequence base on action, but it should not be a consquence for someone who has to deal with if the child is not wanted.

[ellie-kay.livejournal.com]

then why don't they give it up for adoption?? newborns and babies are in such HIGH DEMAND for couples who want to adopt because they can't have children of their own.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. But that would require right-wing radicals to stand aside while kids get real, useful sex-ed in school, with full access to birth control.

So till that happens, abortion needs to remain safe and legal.

[ellie-kay.livejournal.com]

sex ed belongs in the home, NOT in public school. sorry.

[midnightwriter.livejournal.com]

I have no opinions on abortion as I leave this on the back burner, just as I don't debate religion as everyone has their own concept. My main concern is real change and exposing the Elite Banksters and crimes against humanity. Finding out and exposing the truth is my driving force. Although, you all have excellent arguments in your views.

[shadowyphantom.livejournal.com]

I believe that even a fetus has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Besides, wouldn't most, if not all, aborted fetuses want the chance to live? Then again, if other women want to kill off a part of themselves, I have no say in it.

I think sucking out a fetus' brains (via partial-birth abortion) is particularly horrific; I wouldn't wish that on even my worst enemy.

Oh, and if the mother is in danger of dying, then I do think that she should be able to choose an abortion; however, if the mother chooses abortion as opposed to dealing with her mistakes, I think that's a shitty cop-out. As for actualy rape victims (and not women who cry "wolf"), then I think abortion should be implemented.

If we can find a way to safely take a third trimester fetus out of the womb so it can continue to grow and develop, and the child is then put up for adoption, I'm all for that.

Fuck yes.

As for Obama's view that underage girls should be able to be transported (by the federal government) out of state to get an abortion, I think he's a fucking loon for supporting it. First off, the people in charge of the transportation most likely wouldn't give a shit about the girl; the girl could be taken by some pervert or outright murdered, and they wouldn't bat an eyelash. Second off, the parents wouldn't know if the kid was dead or alive; they'd have no knowledge of their whereabouts, and the government officials probably wouldn't even give them the peace of mind of knowing where their child is, and the officials would withold information.

Sorry for the rant about the stuff directly above; but it does tie in with abortion.

[njyoder.livejournal.com]

First off, the people in charge of the transportation most likely wouldn't give a shit about the girl; the girl could be taken by some pervert or outright murdered, and they wouldn't bat an eyelash.


hahahahhaha wat. yes, i'm totally sure that the government would employ rapists and murderers. that amkes so much sense.

why would this be any worse than normal use of public transportation or getting a private ride? murderers are lurking around the corners, just waiting to a kill a girl who is seeking an abortion!

[njyoder.livejournal.com]

The "it's her body" thing is just a semantic cop-out. Just because something relies on a body for life support, doesn't mean they're the same thing, otherwise conjoined twins couldn't be considered independent people. The cells have different human DNA.

Furthermore, unless you're for the unrestricted use of all drugs, it's inconsistent to suggest anyone can do with their body as they wish.

[ellie-kay.livejournal.com]

Furthermore, unless you're for the unrestricted use of all drugs, it's inconsistent to suggest anyone can do with their body as they wish.

This is an excellent point.

Having gone through this song and dance...

[paintmeamovie.livejournal.com]

I agree with everything you said except for two things.

I think first trimester (Or a little bit after) is reasonable enough time to decide and get yourself down to have the actual abortion. As for the idea that a girl "Doesn't know" she was pregnant... ime, BS.

If in your last scenario I err on the side of the fetus. Carrying it that far and then abortion seems kind of sick when adoption is a valid option. I understand that this is sort of "This squicks me out" judgment, and not based on any logic.
My logic would be that it can possibly survive on its own, so therefore gets some rights.
And of course it doesn't take into account the "what life is that child going to have in an orphanage, who is going to adopt them blah blah blah" people.

Re: Having gone through this song and dance...

[paintmeamovie.livejournal.com]

Also... sorry buddy, I kinda shat all over this post.

[fischlehrer.livejournal.com]

There are too many people in the world. Better to nip a life in the bud early before it can grow up and become a consumer. Maybe a better use of federal resources would be to ENCOURAGE more people to have abortions. Not just fund sex ed and abortions, but ay women to have abortions. Some legislator in the South advocated giving low income women $1000 to have their tubes tied. A novel approach. It didn't go over well when he kept calling the women "those people" though. But think of the savings. Spend $1000 one time to tie a woman's tubes. Avoid paying thousands for her potential offsprings education, health care and welfare. Or we could just bomb countries of people we don't like. That seems to work pretty well too. More collateral damage though to our own troops.

In all seriousness though, I am pro choice. I don't think life is sacred. There are already too many humans on the planet. The mom is here first. She gets to pick if she wants to be a mom or have an abortion. Sorry kids, but you don't get to choose if you live, your mom does. That's my take on it. If it offends, no worries. I get offended all the time. It makes life interesting.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

America is not the world. Obama is president of America only (for now) ;-)

[budhaboy.livejournal.com]

A fetus is a part of the mother's body. It's a group of cells that, if removed from the mother, cannot survive. Therefore, as part of her body, it's nobody else's goddamned business what she does with it. If she wants to pull it out and barbecue it, I support her right to do so. I'd wonder about her sanity, but that's another matter.

I am in complete agreement... The entity must be able to live on it's own to obtain constitutional protection. Prior to that it is an entity whose well being is uniquely tied to the mother, and in her domain (and she in its).

I'm pretty sure this is why it was codified this way. In fact, I'm pretty sure the historical interpretation of 'quick' in the bible meant just this... Prior to the religious zealotry of the great awakening, people used this guideline to justify abortion for centuries.

consider (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion)

[njyoder.livejournal.com]

An infant can't live on its own.

[ghoststrider.livejournal.com]

I am pro-choice. I believe that the only person who has the right to decide what happens to the parasite--for that, biologically, is was the fetus is--inside the woman is the woman herself. Nobody else has that right. It is a central part of libertarianism and the theory of self-ownership.

However, I am also against people's money being taken for programs that they do not support. It is their money; if they support abortion so, then they should donate to abortion clinics or pro-choice advocacy groups. So I am pro-choice and anti-federal funding of abortions.

The one place where I waver on abortion itself is when the fetus could survive on its own, but really, who has abortions that late in the cycle?

PS: I totally support allowing homosexuals to adopt children without any interference from the government, in order to take care of the orphans. It would also allow young mothers unable or too God-fearing to have an abortion to give their kid up for adoption more easily.

Wow!

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

This debate made the grade. You're almost at 300 responses. Rock on!

(Oh, yah. I'm happy with Obama's decision. I may not agree with you completely on the details, but I support a woman's right to make her own medical decisions.)

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

(third time luck for the post, sorry about that)

I support the right of an individual to control their own body.

In response to njyoder, this right applies to sapient individuals. A fetus isn't sapient. Heck for most of the time it isn't event sentient (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2352185), and of course there are fetuses that can never reach sapience.

(And in answer to point two, yes I support sapient individuals using whatever drugs they want to as well - however, unlike abortions some drugs result in metabolic dependence and are dangerous when used with heavy machinery and automatic rifles.. So of course there is regulation..I support regulation of abortion as well)

Now I know there's some people out there who claim that all human life is sacred. Well, you can hold to that argument if, and only if, you're putting your hand up look after all the babies born without brains (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Anencephaly_side.jpg) then. Hey, it's possible to keep them alive you know, those sweet little miracles, if you're prepared to pay for the life support.

[njyoder.livejournal.com]

what does sentience have to do with the "its her body" argument? why would anyone define a body in terms of sentience? if someone dies, is the corpse no longer a body? a body is just an individual organism's tissues and this certainly has different dna than the mother.