[IrishEyes]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes
1- I don't agree with abortion, especially government funded, or late term abortions. I think that underage children should be required to tell their parents if they want to have an abortion.


stargazer replied:
Ok, so don't have an abortion, then.

This is a carry-over from another thread. I want to discuss what was left unsaid in the response by stargazer.

I do not agree with abortion. This would shock people that knew me 15 years ago, as I was very active in the "pro-choice" movement during the late 80s/early 90s. I went head-to-head with those ridiculous "Operation Rescue" people more times than I can remember. Even after having children, I still was not convinced that abortion was wrong. I very strongly believed that it was up to each individual woman to make that decision on her own, and that no person, especially some man in government, should have the right to tell me what to do with MY body.

I feel very different now, and it's my right to feel the way I do. I don't bar the doorways to clinics, I don't scream at women that walk into clinics, I don't condemn anyone for their choices. However, I also don't think I should be expected to pay for anyone else's abortion, in the form of tax-funded 'procedures'. I also think that 'late-term' abortions should not be legal. Any time that a baby can survive outside the mother's body, it's gone beyond ridding yourself of an unwanted pregnancy to murder, in my opinion.

But I feel even stronger about a point that I mentioned, but noone else commented on - parental consent. A minor is not allowed to buy cigarettes or alcohol, right? Well it makes sense that a minor should not be allowed to make a decision like abortion without parental involvement either.

So, stargazer, and any others, I won't have an abortion. But I shouldn't have to fund them, and I should be notified if my teenager is trying to have one.

[Tormod]

I think it's a fair explanation of your views. I actually agree with some of your points. Becoming a father (twice, even) made me seriously rethink my opinion on abortions.

But I think the outcome of my pondering took me in another direction. I still think abortion must be legal. There was a case a while back with a teenager (13) in Ireland was not allowed to have an abortion, even though she had been raped and her story was really, really sad. The Irish government would not let her have an abortion so she had to go to another country to have it done. Now how hypocritical is that? (Although they DID try to forcibly stop her from going!!!).

I do not think abortion should be recommended except in cases where the health of the mother is at serious risk, or in cases like the above where the child is a result of a criminal action and the woman (girl) is victimised.

It most certainly should not be used as a contraceptive, which I have read is becoming more common (which must be horrible for *all* parties involved).

I do have a problem with late-term abortions, and like you point out, cases where the child can survive. But some sort of system must then be in place to take care of children which otherwise will not be taken care of by the mothers. This ties in with the welfare system you also want to discuss.

As for not wanting to pay - all I can say is that the price of democracy is having to pay for things you don't like. A lot of my money goes to funding religious activities over the state budget. I disagree with that. Yet I am for people's right to exercise their religious beliefs. A lot of your money goes towards a (in my eyes) inhuman system where people are put on death row for ages and then executed by your government - even people (well, mostly black men) who were minor when they committed the crime. So the "I don't want to pay" issue is a completely different topic in my eyes.

But as always I do respect your views and I think it is good that you share them.

[Stargazer]

Does it count if the baby can survive outside the mother's body without any kinds of artificial aid or any kind of technology? I don't agree with abortions in too-late term either, btw. The question is of course where to draw the line. In Sweden, abortion is legal, and as far as I know it's free and completely confidential. I suppose it's done this way for a number of reasons. Perhaps we don't wish to make it worse than it probably is, for the teenagers. Perhaps some of us don't think it's a great idea to make it illegal, which wont stop abortions from being carried out, only the manner in which they are done. Maybe we respect people's personal choices. And what if the girl comes from a poor family that can't afford it, and therefor says no when she asks her parents for permission? It wont help them. There are probably many more reasons.

[Tormod]

See, Irish, you're discussing welfare with two Scandinavians. Maybe we should bring in someone else...

[IrishEyes]

yikes! geez, that explains a lot. The last time i checked stargazer's profile, i thought it said he was from the us. my bust!!
i'll get back to this when i have a few seconds to pull up some stats.


also, i think there is a difference between welfare, and a country that is more into socialism. but again, i'll add more later. have stuff to get ready for tomorrow night's Veteran's Day Block Party!

edit: because i got my welfare response mixed in with this one. will respond to both later this evening!

[Freethinker]

What is abortion? Really! I hear it discussed all the time. Yet I have not found a single person that can provide a medically supportable specific point at which we can say "it" is a human life deservbing of full protection under the law. We can basically agree that when a mother brings a fetus to term and delivers it, there is a new human life. But at what point before then is there ANY medically agreed factually supportable point to draw the line?

Who here can provide ANY valid supportable proof of when this line is crossed to support their anti-choice position?

Life began at some point with the "single cell". It has been a continuous flow since then.

In various discussions here, we have been unable to specify what actually defines "life". What IS or IS NOT alive.

Then there is Birth Control and abortion as part of that process. This is a LEGAL issue. Since no one can resolve the issue of WHEN LIFE, what right does the Government have telling people what IT arbitrarily decides should be the line? At best we have some group of people that wants to force their personal decision on others. Lacking a FACTUAL STANCE, what gives them the right?

Until there is some factual, science based decision as to when a mass of cells can be assigned personage, no one should have the right to remove that decision from the only person left to make that choice, the woman herself.

[Freethinker]

As to parental notification.

Unfortunatelyit is not uncommon for the father of an unwanted teen preganacy to be a male authority figure. (Father, husband of mother, boyfriend of mother...). To require a teen to get permission from the authorities responsible is absurd.

Yet we don't hear the same selfrighteous assertion of parental rights when a child is being abused and the court act to remove the child for it's own safety.

[IrishEyes]

As to parental notification.

Unfortunatelyit is not uncommon for the father of an unwanted teen preganacy to be a male authority figure. (Father, husband of mother, boyfriend of mother...). To require a teen to get permission from the authorities responsible is absurd.

Yet we don't hear the same selfrighteous assertion of parental rights when a child is being abused and the court act to remove the child for it's own safety.

I'm not sure I follow this. Can you please explain this one a little more?
You are saying that a portion (large? small?) of the teens that want to have abortions are pregnant due to their fathers, step-father's, or mom's boyfriends, right? And that this should make it legal for all minors to have abortion on demand?

As for the last line, I'm not sure I follow you there either. What is it that you are saying, exactly? That the people that abuse kids are self-righteous? Or that it is self-righteous to assert your parental rights in any situation? Or that the court has the right to remove children from people that assert their rights? I'm sorry, I just don't follow what you are trying to say here.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

I'm not sure I follow this. Can you please explain this one a little more?

Not sure how much to cut and keep the context. Or what more you want me to say.

You are saying that a portion (large? small?) of the teens that want to have abortions are pregnant due to their fathers, step-father's, or mom's boyfriends, right?

Yes, that is to some extent what I am saying.

And that this should make it legal for all minors to have abortion on demand?

Simplistic, but somewhat correct. But we know that things are only black and white. So this must be the only option to forcing a 17 yr old to confront the man that raped her so she does not have to have his baby.

As for the last line, I'm not sure I follow you there either. What is it that you are saying, exactly? That the people that abuse kids are self-righteous?

They may or may not be, that was not the subject of the statement. Mention of an abuser is AFTER the usage of "selfrighteous". The context would show the "selfrighteous" to be an adjective of those mentioned earlier that you would "hear (an) assertion of parental rights" from. The political group that wishes to legislate the control of "rights" they them"self" wish to assume control over. Thus "selfrighteous".

Or that it is self-righteous to assert your parental rights in any situation?

This is a different but related topic. Yes it IS selfrighteous to assert that every parent should have full and complete rights over their children. Many children die every year because of this mentality. Significantly more are forced to grow up in a hostile crippling environment. Some philosophies actually promote physical abuse to bring a child in line.

Who makes the decision? There has to be a process in place to protect them.

Or that the court has the right to remove children from people that assert their rights? I'm sorry, I just don't follow what you are trying to say here.

Perhaps it would be better to let the kids die?

[IrishEyes]

Perhaps it would be better to let the kids die?

Begs the question... which kids? Are we talking about your group of raped-by-adults-men-in-parental-role, pregnant teens, or are we talking about the unborn children that the not-raped teens are planning to abort, without parental knowledge or consent?

Black and white? No, I don't think so. But we keep coming back to that arbitrary line, and figuring out who gets to decide what is "right".

I've got to think about this a bit more, but do plan on responding in depth very soon. Thanks for your point of view though.