|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 187 responses total. |
lk
|
|
response 100 of 187:
| 
Apr 4 04:15 UTC 2002 |
But, Twila, you're saying that from the perspective of someone who
wants the baby, as if it was a miscarriage. Is it the same if the
woman didn't want to have a baby?
In other words, if someone was brought up thinking that abortion was
a standard option, would an abortion be any more traumatic than having
your appendix or tonsils removed?
Yet someone who thinks that abortion is wrong, or even questionable,
well, sure; they're going to have nightmares.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 101 of 187:
|
Apr 4 06:27 UTC 2002 |
It doesn't matter whether birth, abortion, a death, etc are traumatic
or not. This is a personal matter and nobody else's business. It is
a stupid argument against abortion. A woman is entitled to make a decision
about abortion and how she makes that decision, and its consequences
are not the business of the busybodies of the world. They should just
"butt out".
|
oval
|
|
response 102 of 187:
|
Apr 4 08:05 UTC 2002 |
i can honestly say - if i got pregnant i probably could not bring myself to
abort. but then, there could be certain circumstances where i may decide i'd
have to. i would be a painful chioce to make and very traumatic. but a woman
should have the option. i'm not sure men are really fit to judge.
for example - a rape is not something a lot of women would want to produce
a child out of ..
|
anderyn
|
|
response 103 of 187:
|
Apr 4 13:12 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
jep
|
|
response 104 of 187:
|
Apr 4 14:00 UTC 2002 |
re #102: If it's just a women's issue, then perhaps men are not fit to
judge or participate in the decision-making process. As a man, I don't
entirely buy that that is the case. I think it's a life and death
issue.
If I've fathered a child, I have the same responsibility for that child
as the mother, should she deliver it, according to the law and my own
values. I owe the child funancial support, a home, the parenting of a
father, my love and support and guidance, all of that. The law can
only mandate financial support and care-giving from either parent and
doesn't do a perfect job of enforcing even those.
Anyway, if I've fathered a child, that's *my* child. My values mandate
me providing emotional and financial support to the mother during the
pregnancy, and for that matter, after it. Along with that, though, I
expect to be part of the decision-making process for the child. I
think that should include the decision to abort, should that be a
possibility the mother is considering. In my case, to whatever extent
I have decision-making power, there could never be an abortion. This
is made clear to anyone for whom it might be an issue, and if we don't
have agreement on it, there's no chance there's going to be a pregnancy.
|
other
|
|
response 105 of 187:
|
Apr 4 17:19 UTC 2002 |
I don't believe that a sperm donor qualifies as a father (no matter what
the method of implantation) until the child is born. The law seems to
disagree with me. I think the notion of parental rights in the case of
an as-yet-unborn fetus is not only silly, but a travesty. It says that
if you're stupid enough to let me cum inside you, and you're unfortunate
enough to conceive as a result, then your rights are thenceforth
subjugated to my whims at least until that pregnancy ends. It's
bullshit.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 106 of 187:
|
Apr 4 17:54 UTC 2002 |
Becoming (not being) a father can be a very cheap investment of time and
money. Becoming (and being) a mother is an enormous investment in time
and money. In view of this, I award to the mother almost all rights in
regard to the disposition of the fetus and even some rights in regard to
the obligations of the father. After the fetus is viable it is, of course,
better for the child if the mother and the father have an agreement for
mutual support and care, but if that breaks down, the child must still
receive care, and it is most practical for the law to then make both
responsible.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 107 of 187:
|
Apr 4 18:13 UTC 2002 |
Hm. There's a big difference between the things I'd object to and the things
I'd try to change. If were -- as other so eloquently puts it -- a sperm
donor, and if I wanted to be a father, I'd be pretty upset if the mother
decided to have an abortion. I might even ask her to reconsider. But -- like
it or not -- there's no just way that I could force her to bear a child she
didn't want. Women necessarily play a larger role than men in a pregnancy
-- a much larger role. As far as I'm concerned, that means the mother gets
the last say in what happens to the fetus.
|
oval
|
|
response 108 of 187:
|
Apr 4 19:09 UTC 2002 |
LAST say?
|
bru
|
|
response 109 of 187:
|
Apr 4 21:56 UTC 2002 |
Why do you think socierty puts such a positive spin on marriage? Because teh
sperm donor needs to be held accounatable and be involved in teh process.
|
oval
|
|
response 110 of 187:
|
Apr 4 22:02 UTC 2002 |
marriage doesnt always make that happen.
|
janc
|
|
response 111 of 187:
|
Apr 4 22:48 UTC 2002 |
Which kind of brings us back to the original topic of this item --
marriage.
Valerie and I are busily doing our small part to undermine the
institution of marriage by publically living together in a committed
relationship, with a house and children, and just not bothering to get
married. Those who think marriage is the glue that holds society
together probably think we are setting a bad example for all and
sundry.
Of course, we wouldn't have taken the option as easily if there weren't
lots of other couples already doing so. Interesting, many of those
couples were same-sex couples. For example the book we use to figure
out how to set up wills and other legal arrangements to make sure that
our co-ownership of our houses and our guardianship of our children
worked out the way we wanted was originally written for same-sex
couples.
Conservatives denied (and continue to deny) the right to marry to
same-sex couples who would like very much to be married. They thought
allowing same-sex marriage would sully the sacrament of marriage.
Problem is, this forced same-sex couples to seek out and develop
alternatives to marriage. To find ways couples could live together
without marrying.
The conservatives thought this wouldn't be a problem, because everyone
else would keep hating gays just as much as they did. Surprise, lots
of those gay couples who wanted to settle down in committed
relationships were rather nice people and lots of people noticed. The
conservative attempt to preserve marriage ended up turning marriage
from a universal institution into something suitable for only some
people, one of many alternatives. By freezing the definition of
marriage while the range of alternatives offered by society grew, they
inevitably caused marriage to be a shrinking force in our society.
With the way science and social evolotion are changing our ideas of
sex, gender, and gender equality in the workplace, holding the
definition of marriage fixed is a sure way to doom it's role as a
universal institution.
|
russ
|
|
response 112 of 187:
|
Apr 4 23:27 UTC 2002 |
Re #102: Lots of things about birth can be traumatic, like facing
a newborn that's severely deformed or with a fatal disease. I know
that I'd prefer any child of mine to be spared the pain.
Re #103: And that's an excellent argument for telling the Right-
to-Lifers to butt out of public life. Anyone who believes their
propaganda is much more likely to experience trauma - because
they expect to - than someone who isn't so pre-programmed.
Medical statistics show conclusively that early abortion is far
safer than full-term pregnancy, too; the tales of "danger" are lies.
|
jep
|
|
response 113 of 187:
|
Apr 5 01:22 UTC 2002 |
Most people still get married. Those that divorce mostly get married
again.
I'll admit to some misgivings about gay marriage, which makes me part
of a problem. If it comes down to it, I don't really see who it hurts.
I agree with Jan in #111 that marriage law could be more flexible. It
*has* been somewhat flexible; divorce is much easier than it was 40
years ago for example, and the legal and social limitations of the wife
are quite a lot different than they used to be. Women who weren't
employed typically couldn't get loans on their own, and it was between
socially unacceptable and illegal for her to not take her husband's
name. Child custody after divorce is completely different than it was
at the turn of the century. Then the man (because he had an income)
almost always got custody if he wanted it; now the convention is that
the woman does, but it's state law in Michigan that parents share
custody if either of them requests it, unless there's a valid reason
not to do it that way.
Marriage/divorce/custody law needs to be modified to cover couples such
as Jan and Valerie, gay couples, and other non-traditional families and
households. Whether they call it marriage or soemthing else doesn't
matter so much as ensuring the interests of children who are dependent
on those relationships. It wouldn't hurt to have a legal framework for
contentious issues such as division of property, support of partners
without incomes or capacity to work, and so forth.
My side of the political spectrum is responsible for the lack of legal
coverage for all of these issues for non-traditional households. If
there wasn't popular societal support for their position, the right
side wouldn't be able to hold back the laws from being passed. Not to
make excuses, wrong is wrong.
|
russ
|
|
response 114 of 187:
|
Apr 5 05:10 UTC 2002 |
Re #104: It would be nice if the law recognized something like
the rights that should go along with such obligations, John.
Unfortunately, it mostly does not (as you've learned).
Re #105: I'll agree with you that conception doesn't imply an
obligation. On the other hand, I think that someone should be
able to set forth their limits of liability in the event of a
conception and make them stick, legally; the other party can
take them or (as John would) leave them. I think both sexes
should be able to do this, as a matter of fairness. The use
of babies as weapons is morally reprehensible, and anyone trying
to do that ought not to be a parent. (Hell, people who can't
override their hormones with reason shouldn't be parents.)
Re #109: Unfortunately, there is a lot of accountability enforced
by "the system", but involvement can be legally frustrated by one
party with no accountability at all.
|
janc
|
|
response 115 of 187:
|
Apr 5 13:31 UTC 2002 |
I can really get interested in this whole abortion thread right now.
It seems so much beside the point. Let's suppose that God waved his
hand and suddenly all the politicians and judges in Michigan suddenly
became 100% firmly pro-life. They pass all the laws banning abortion
that the pro-lifers have been dreaming about, and their rightousness is
so pure that the supreme court bows down and lets them stand. Does it
work? In this fantasy scenario, is abortion stopped in Michigan? No.
People start going out of state for abortions. Underground
abortionists set up shop throughout the state, until you have more
active practitioners than you do now. People start disseminating
do-it-yourself home abortion instructons on the internet. Of course,
our rightous leaders won't just sit back and ignore that. They'll set
up manditory pregnancy tests for all women attempting to cross the
Michigan border. No leaving the state till you've peed on the stick.
Police teams will break into houses compensating coat hangers. The
internet will be shut down. The abortion police state will reign.
There is no practical way to stop a person who really wants an abortion
from getting one. So all this debate about whether or not stopping
people from getting abortions would be the "right thing" seems
pointless to me. It isn't even a possible thing, so who cares if it is
right or not. We should be focusing on choosing between possible
alternatives, and I haven't seen a viable vision for a pro-life world.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 116 of 187:
|
Apr 5 14:03 UTC 2002 |
re111: are you sure she isn't bonin' lotsa different dudes?
|
orinoco
|
|
response 117 of 187:
|
Apr 5 15:45 UTC 2002 |
Re #115: That's going a little overboard. The anti-murder laws don't stop
people from killing already-born humans, but I imagine you support those
anyway. If abortion really is immoral, and if the state has a powerful
interest in stopping it, then even a partly-effective law against abortion
would be better than none at all.
(Of course, I don't think abortion is always immoral, and I don't think the
state should try to interfere. But it's for those reasons, and not because
an anti-abortion law wouldn't work, that I support the availability of legal
abortions.)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 118 of 187:
|
Apr 5 18:48 UTC 2002 |
There is a difference between murder and abortion that works against
anti-abortion laws, and that is that the fetus is not a recorded human
being, hence no one is "missing" after an abortion.
|
brighn
|
|
response 119 of 187:
|
Apr 5 18:52 UTC 2002 |
Fetuses aren't citizens, for instance, since citizens have to be born in the
United States, or naturalized. Fetuses clearly haven't been born anywhere yet.
|
jep
|
|
response 120 of 187:
|
Apr 5 19:17 UTC 2002 |
What's the crime if someone hits a pregnant woman in the abdomen and
the fetus is not born alive as a result? Simple assault? I wouldn't
think that would be enough. I would expect it would matter how far
into the pregnancy she was, but at *some* point, it seems to me like
it'd be murder.
I don't know about others (well, yes I do), but when Andrea was
expecting, we had names picked out for the baby months before she was
to deliver. There definitely would have been a loss for us if anything
had happened to prevent the baby from being born alive, any time from
when we found out she was pregnant. The baby was not just a blob to us.
|
drew
|
|
response 121 of 187:
|
Apr 5 19:53 UTC 2002 |
Re #120:
Deuteronomy had it listed as a civil tort, effectively.
|
oval
|
|
response 122 of 187:
|
Apr 5 21:38 UTC 2002 |
re 115: "Police teams will break into houses compensating coat hangers."
that's awful nice of them!!! ;)
|
i
|
|
response 123 of 187:
|
Apr 6 02:03 UTC 2002 |
Re: #121:
I'm only aware of the commandment in Exodus 21:22-25 - where is it
in Deuteronomy?
|
mdw
|
|
response 124 of 187:
|
Apr 6 03:12 UTC 2002 |
Re #115 - by all accounts, that's not far from how things worked in many
areas of this country from at least the 1920's and into the 60's. It
would certainly be possible to have a society where abortion is not
possible. It wouldn't be very much like the society we live in today.
It might be rather more like life in Afghanistan when the Taliban was in
control. Are there realy people here who think that's preferable?
|