|
Grex > Femme > #80: Another GoodThing/BadThing Item, only about Abortion. |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 8 new of 32 responses total. |
omni
|
|
response 25 of 32:
| 
Nov 10 05:53 UTC 1997 |
bees slipped in.
|
clees
|
|
response 26 of 32:
|
Nov 10 09:58 UTC 1997 |
Hmmmmm.
I always thought myself a fervent supporter of the pro choice movement. But
hearing some of the auguments concerning the reasons for abortion, it sounds
somewhat like a luxury problem to me.
Who in earth ever came up with the thought that personal preferences could
prevail when it comes to offspring?
That's not the way nature meant to be.
But then again, if an severe dis ability is noted, I can at least understand
why somebody would consider an abortion.
Earlier mentioned remark about Hitler's germany selecting (killing peoole who
happened to be disfavoured) at eugenetic grounds, trying to prove scientifily
that jews were minor to the Herrenvolk. Do not forget that thousands of
gypsies were gassed, just like political opposers, gays, disabled and demented
people.In sorts Hitler practiced post natal abortion.
Methinks that abortion based on prefrences would be a clear case of bad thing
abortion.
(what if my parents only wanted blue-eyed babies?)
|
md
|
|
response 27 of 32:
|
Nov 10 12:17 UTC 1997 |
Does anyone dispute a woman's *right* to have an abortion for any
reason at all, even if you personally find the reason offensive?
|
anderyn
|
|
response 28 of 32:
|
Nov 10 14:10 UTC 1997 |
WEll, not in the early stages of pregnancy, no. I don't dispute the right,
though I do dispute that it should be ONLY her decision, but then I've
always had the luxury of getting pregnant in a commmitted relationship
which was sanctified by God and the state. :-) Once, when I did think
I was pregnant, and it was waaay too close Rhiannon's birth, I thought
about it, since I didn't want to risk my health as my Mother did, with
eight pregnancies in six years --- but I never seriously considered it
with either of my two confirmed pregnancies. And if I had, I would
have expected Bruce to have a BIG say in whether or not anything happened.
|
janc
|
|
response 29 of 32:
|
Nov 10 16:45 UTC 1997 |
I think if you are going to grant a women the right to choose to abort a baby
then you can't legislate the reason. That makes no sense.
Grand Inquistor: Woman, why do you want to abort your pregnancy?
Woman: Well, the doctors say it's going to be a boy, and I think boys
are icky, so I wanna abort it.
Grand Inquistor: Woman, that is not a socially acceptable reason for
aborting a pregnancy. Your request is denied and you shall
receive psychological counselling instead of an abortion.
Woman: Wait, I've changed my mind. I want an abortion because I'm a
silly and immature woman with bizarre prejudicies against
boy babies, and am not a suitable parent for a child.
Grand Inquistor: Oh, that's fine then. Here's your certificate of
political correctness. Have a happy abortion.
If you think only some reasons are good enough, then you have to take the
choice away from the mother entirely, and it has to be possible for third
parties to determine if the mother actually has that reason or not.
Bottom line for me is, that if a woman has some stupid reason for not wanting
a baby, then she probably shouldn't have a baby. It is the women who want to
*have* babys for stupid reasons who we should be looking askance at. While
I'm not an advocate of either, it makes a lot more sense to have people
pass a test before allowing them to have a baby then to make them pass a
test before allowing them to not have a baby.
|
i
|
|
response 30 of 32:
|
Nov 10 23:45 UTC 1997 |
Well, I'd be inclined to deny the right to an abortion after about 6 or
7 months. But I'd also proclaim a right to c-section & adoption at that
stage, which amounts to the same thing from the "I don't want this baby
after all" point of view.
Jan covers the stupidities of PC-reasons-only abortion pretty well. While
prejudice can certainly be a reason for abortion, the alternative sort of
Brain Police society strikes me as far worse.
Abortion doesn't really seem to be the issue in a lot of this discussion.
It's just a klunky, inefficient, emotionally charged method of selecting
some of your baby's genes. Mentally fast-forward yourself to a good 21st-
century proactive planned parenthood office, where you & your spouse give
the computer a few drops of blood, then start selecting traits from those
available in the pooled genes. How evil would it be to decide on a boy
with no beard and perfect pitch? Are you some sort of bigot? Both of you
had very painful, expensive problems with wisdom teeth. Are you committing
adultery if you opt for a "no wisdom teeth" gene that the computer keeps on
file? Spitting on the graves of your every ancestor who needed glasses if
you try to balance eyeball development characteristics to keep nearly 20-20
vision as your son ages? Yes, abortion raises other issues and this idea
is too Trekky for a lot of people, but this looks to me like what most of
the issues come down to.
|
clees
|
|
response 31 of 32:
|
Nov 11 16:13 UTC 1997 |
Both Walter and Jan make sense (and this is one of the reasons why I like
grex. It is always nice to witness well thought opinions, and discussions in
the flesh more easily tend towards the furious shouting mode).
Even though I raise, and always will raise, my eyebrowse at the thought of
abortions at the whims of certain people, I am that pro choice, that the
greater good of this personal freedom weighs up to ,inor negative occassions.
Hey, democracy is not perfect, but it is the best system we have got. It's
the same kind of consideration.
|
iggy
|
|
response 32 of 32:
|
Nov 11 19:56 UTC 1997 |
somehow i managed to avoid the 'bad eye' gene.
my siblings, parents <and THEIR siblings>, and grandparents all needed
glasses.
i do not. (yay!)
|