Join the Care Bears @ Abortion Debate!

Underground abortion

2008-07-14T13:43:35Z

The anti-abortion group Comment on Reproductive Ethics told the BBC it was taking abortion "into the shadows".

"It" was the purchasing of pills online for the purpose of having an abortion at home.

Apparently, some of the women who have made such a purchase have gone on to require further treatment:
However, a study published in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology found that 11% of 400 customers went on to need a surgical procedure -- either because the drugs had not completed the abortion or because of excessive bleeding, the BBC reported.

The fact that many of the women buying these pills online are from countries that restrict abortion is what made me take notice.
It would appear that both sides agree that keeping abortion from going "into the shadows" would be a good thing.

Do you think this is accurate? Do you think making abortion illegal would push it "into the shadows"?

It sounds like a given, as this seems to occur with most acts that are declared illegal, but then that would also seem to indicate that making abortion illegal is not the way to combat it effectively.

How would you respond/what would be your terms?

2008-06-19T21:32:12Z

This question isn't specified to just one side of the pro-life/pro-choice fence, because neither are exempt from having an unexpected pregnancy.

After doing some work/research with women who have fertility difficulties (whether they have problems conceiving or problems carrying to term) I know that there are women who, with their partners, are ready to adopt in any case or solution.

So - say you've got an unwanted pregnancy and you're thinking about an abortion - but one of these women are a friend of yours. She says that she'll adopt the child under any terms.

Would you go through with the abortion or would you agree to work with her? If so - what are your terms (paying costs, visitation, whatever your heart desires)? Would a family willing to pay the medical bills be enough for you to chose to carry on the pregnancy to term?
Men, what would be your perspective if your girlfriend or wife decided to do this instead of an abortion?

Framing the Debate

2008-05-16T09:44:58Z

One of the rules in the abortiondebate community centers around a contentious issue - naming. As you all know (or SHOULD) know, it's a violation of community rules to refer to one "side" or the other by anything other than their "chosen" name. There are prolifers and there are prochoicers. There are no anti-choicers, no pro-aborts, no anti-lifers, no pro-deathers, unless you're new here or aiming for moderation action against you (suicide by moderator? let's go out with a bang!).

SO!

FOR DEBATE: How much do you think the naming of each group affects the debate? How does it affect how you view people you are debating with - in person or online - if they choose to use the accepted, "neutral" names, or the more polemic alternatives? How do the names used affect your perception of articles written about sexual politics/the abortion debate? Do they affect your perception at all?

Abortion-related publicity stunts: help or harm?

2008-04-30T02:38:20Z

An Idaho strawberry farmer vying for Larry Craig's senate seat legally changed his name to "Pro Life."

According to the article, he changed his name in order to get through a loophole in Idaho law that prohibits slogans from appearing with a candidate's name on a ballot.

Also according to the article, the local right-to-life is not particularly supportive of this, because they think it's just going to confuse voters, and might even lead them to select two candidates for Senate (because they think they are voting for a candidate and then voting "pro-life"), which would invalidate their votes.

My question is - and this is directed to everyone, pro-life and pro-choice - do you think that stunts like this have a positive or negative effect on the movement? Does it call needed attention to an inflammatory issue, or does it turn the issue into a laughingstock?

I think the whole idea is pretty silly, honestly, and I would feel the same way if he'd changed his name to "Pro Choice." But what does everyone else think?

abortiondebate @ 2008-04-17T12:39:00

2008-04-17T17:43:09Z

Abortion as an art project

Beginning next Tuesday, Shvarts will be displaying her senior art project, a documentation of a nine-month process during which she artificially inseminated herself "as often as possible" while periodically taking abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriages. Her exhibition will feature video recordings of these forced miscarriages as well as preserved collections of the blood from the process.

The goal in creating the art exhibition, Shvarts said, was to spark conversation and debate on the relationship between art and the human body. But her project has already provoked more than just debate, inciting, for instance, outcry at a forum for fellow senior art majors held last week. And when told about Shvarts' project, students on both ends of the abortion debate have expressed shock . saying the project does everything from violate moral code to trivialize abortion.

What do you think of this project? Is there some value to it? Does it hurt the pro-choice movement? Bolster the idea that some pro life groups spread that women who abort do so casually and frequently? Should there be laws in place to stop an experiment like this one?

ETA: It was a hoax.

unique DNA = a separate human being?

2008-04-12T02:56:20Z

Lydia Fairchild is a chimera -- most of her body has one set of DNA, but her reproductive organs and other parts have a completely different set of DNA. Scientists believe this happens when two eggs are fertilized, and then those two embryos fuse, creating one embryo and eventually one baby with two sets of DNA.

Is this woman one human being or two? Are her reproductive organs a separate human being who deserves equal rights? Should she ever want a hysterectomy, should she be allowed to have it; or would that be murder? Should it be illegal for her to have an abortion because her uterus has its own unique DNA?

Responsibility sans abortion?

2008-04-04T01:24:24Z

If there were ever a time where abortion had simply never existed (say far far far in the future in some utopia or let's just imagine,) might giving a child up for adoption be viewed as an irresponsible measure?

I'm thinking in terms of the way some people may view abortion as being just "killing off the problem" or running away from responsibility. Might adoption be looked at as simply giving your problem to someone else to handle, and not handling it like a real, responsible adult, if abortion had somehow never existed?

Anyone for abstinence-only education?

2008-03-25T13:32:39Z

This latest study from the Journal of Adolescent Health is saying... well, you can see what the lead researcher is saying here: "The bottom line is that there is strong evidence that comprehensive sex education is more effective than abstinence-only education at preventing teen pregnancies," said lead researcher Pamela K. Kohler, of the Center for AIDS and STD at the University of Washington in Seattle.

Is there anyone, prolife or prochoice that is against such education? It would seem clear that less pregnancies would equate to less abortions, no?

With this latest research, has abstinence-only education become a dead-horse topic? Are the only promoters of such education those with some form of faith or religion?

abortiondebate @ 2008-03-10T11:33:00

2008-03-10T16:02:04Z

Consider the following: This couple want a deaf child. Should we try to stop them?

For those what don't want to read the whole thing, here is the pertinent bit:

Like any other three-year-old child, Molly has brought joy to her parents. Bright-eyed and cheerful, Molly is also deaf - and that is an issue which vexes her parents, though not for the obvious reasons. Paula Garfield, a theatre director, and her partner, Tomato Lichy, an artist and designer, are also deaf and had hoped to have a child who could not hear.

'We celebrated when we found out about Molly's deafness,' says Lichy. 'Being deaf is not about being disabled, or medically incomplete - it's about being part of a linguistic minority. We're proud, not of the medical aspect of deafness, but of the language we use and the community we live in.'

Now the couple are hoping to have a second child, one they also wish to be deaf - and that desire has brought them into a sharp confrontation with Parliament. The government's Human Fertilisation and Embryology (HFE) bill, scheduled to go through the Commons this spring, will block any attempt by couples like Garfield and Lichy to use modern medical techniques to ensure their children are deaf. The bill is a jumbo-sized piece of legislation intended to pull together all aspects of reproductive science in Britain and pave the way for UK scientists to lead the field in embryology. But in trying to do so, the civil servants drafting the bill have provoked a great deal of unrest.

'Paula is now in her early 40s,' says Lichy. 'Our first daughter was born naturally, but due to Paula's age, we may need IVF for the second.' The trouble is that, according to clause 14/4/9 of the bill, the selection of a hearing child through IVF is permitted, but embryos found to have deafness genes will be automatically discarded. 'This sends out a clear and direct message that the government thinks deaf people are better off not being born,' says Steve Emery, a sign-language expert at Heriot-Watt University.

This point is backed by Lichy. 'It is a cornerstone of modern society and law that deaf and hearing people have equal rights. If hearing people were to have the right to throw away a deaf embryo, then we as deaf people should also have the right to throw away a hearing embryo.'

Garfield and Lichy say they will continue to try for a second baby naturally and will be happy if it is able to hear. Yet their affront over the blocking of their use of IVF is intense. 'I find this shocking, detestable and utterly inhuman,' says Lichy. 'I'm a governor at a school for deaf children. When I visit, I see a class of 30 deaf children, all happily signing to each other, running about and creating chaos. Some will be artists, some will be accountants, some may go to Oxbridge, following the path that several of my deaf friends have already beaten. If they had been conceived via IVF, and detected as deaf at that stage, then all would have been aborted before birth.'

So, debaters, my question to you is this: Should there be legislation that automatically discards embryos with genetic "abnormalities" when a) these people are legally seen as equal in the eyes of the law and b) there are people who are seeking children and don't care one way or t'other what "abnormalities" may be present or are actually actively seeking a child with an "abnormality"?

Please disregard whether this legislation is going on in your own country or not. We're speaking in general here.

Right to Life?

2008-02-23T07:38:36Z

Recently during debate on another website, an opponent said

"I think many people would agree with the notion that every human deserves the right to life (PL include z/e/fs) except those who are guilty of murder. I believe that once you murder another, which is the most heinous and grave of all crimes, your right-to-life should not necessarily be protected."

I find this interesting, since from what I have gathered from speaking to many of the pro-lifers on this community, the right-to-life is intrinsic and inviolable.

Prolifers: if you believe in this inheret or God- or Universe-given right to life, what would you say to another pro-lifer who only recognizes the right-to-life of certain humans?

Or, if the right to life CAN be "revoked" for certain humans, is it really an intrinsic right at all, or a privilege which we as a society recognize for [most] individuals?

Standard for Personhood

2008-02-19T00:35:49Z

(This is my first post in this community so my apologies if this topic has been discussed before. If it has please respond with a link to the post.)

Abortion proponents often make the claim that a fetus is not a person. The main reason is that the fetus lacks the ability to carry out some function that a recognized person does. The fetus can't survive on its own, communicate, reason, feel or exercise any rights they might have.

The problem with this functional argument is that the functional deficiencies of the baby in the womb also exist for the baby outside of the womb. A newborn cannot survive on its own, communicate (intelligently), it cannot reason (as we understand it) nor are its senses fully developed. Yet most pro-choice people would agree that a newborn has the same right to live as any other person. Not only that, not all "persons" have all of these functions (i.e. they are handicapped or infirm.) Yet we don't consider them as less of a person. Even perfectly healthy persons have moments where these functions aren't working (sleep, unconsciousness, temporary insanity, substance-induced stupors). But nobody considers them non-persons or less of a person during those moments.

My question for pro-choice people is this: what defines personhood? Is it function and ability? If so, why not provide less rights to the less abled and more rights to the more abled. If personhood is defined by something else, what is it?

abortiondebate @ 2008-02-05T10:18:00

2008-02-05T19:02:10Z

My sister and I were out to lunch the other day, and I asked her if she'd heard about the 40,000 plastic fetus thing yet. (Here, for anyone who hasn't seen it.) Naturally, this lead us to deeper conversation, and I was pleased to hear that although she is SDA and pro-life, she doesn't think that decision should be made for other people. She's usually the kind of person that feels her opinions are in line with Gods and therefour, everyone should agree with her.

We got into a wonderfully open minded discussion, and I enjoyed hearing how she felt about it, knowing she was listening to me mutually.

The thing that we seemed to catch on most was when it's "too late".

My stance is that a fetus is not sentient until it's brain is mature enough to think and feel. I personally belive in a soul, although I am not Christian, but I understand that many Americans do not, and constitutionally have the right to not belive in a soul. I was taking that point of debate.

My sister belives that the soul is present the moment conception happens, and thus even if the fetus can not feel pain or emotion or think, it's soul can and thus it's murder from the moment it exists.

How many of you feel either way, or another way? Why? I'd like to hear about it.

forum life vs. real life

2008-01-31T18:28:18Z

I've been thinking about discussion and arguments that I've had on forums-mostly this one. It seems when you are dicussing abortion on line, it seem so easy to slip into the "OMG, I can't believe that *expletive* said that. What a *expletive*! I knew that the other side were a bunch of *expletive* selfish/ignorant/whatever *expletive*"

And yet, in "real" life I know many people, both friends and family, who have the opposite view of me. We manage to get along (most of the time) without trying to kill each other. This might be because we usually don't sit down and hash out or argue different view points like abortion. But it just seems like there is something about the facelessness of online debating that makes it easier to slip into thinking horrible thoughts about the other person.

So my questions is, is everything you say on abortiondebate what you feel exactly? Do you think the style of discussion makes it easier for your judgement to get clouded or for you to take a position out of stubborness? Do you express you views differently in real life?

Causes of dropping abortion rates?

2008-01-28T05:17:37Z

As we all may have heard by now, according to a study by the Guttmacher Institute that is covered in this article, abortion rates in the US are the lowest they have been in 30 years. The story in question, covered by NPR, attributes this to a shrinking number of abortion providers.

However, this column by former Moral Majority official Cal Thomas attributes the drop in abortions solely to the efforts of right-to-life groups. Planned Parenthood's spokespeople cite the growing availability of birth control, particularly the morning-after pill, which is much easier to obtain now that it is over-the-counter (rather than prescription) for consumers 18 and over.

So, what do we in the community think is causing the drop? One of the above? All of the above? Something else entirely? Me, I've been saying for a long time that Plan B is close to a godsend, but I'm not going to attribute everything to one factor - so what do we think?

political question

2008-01-24T03:12:16Z

Just curious, but how big of a part will abortion issues play in your vote this coming election? Are there other issues that are equally or more important to you? And finally, does everyone but me know who they are going to vote for and why?

reasonable abortion legislation

2008-01-14T19:16:13Z

Some pro-life people like to imply that they simply seek to place "reasonable" regulations on abortion, and claim that the reckless and evil pro-choice movement is against any kind of regulation of abortion whatsoever. Frankly, this is news to me.

My question for debate is:

What regulations would you consider reasonable, when it comes to abortion? (Also, are you pro-choice or pro-life?)

Morbo is displeased!

2008-01-14T04:50:42Z

Puny humans! Morbo demands posts.

How far is too far?

2007-12-22T22:53:46Z

Some history: A recent controversy at my school occurred. The on-campus Pro-life group posted fliers up promoting their position. In short, the fliers were propaganda, for lack of a better term, but the facts they argued were rooted in truth and, for the most part, very simple.

Many students (and faculty) were outraged by this. Numerous complaints were voiced but the one that struck me the most was the following: How far is too far? How far can you go, should you go to promote the truth? Particularly speaking, many felt that the fliers lacked "Compassion" for those who were pro-choice or for those who may have procured abortions. My stances aside, this made me wonder the above question. If this is a matter of human life, should I be cognizant to the feelings of the opposing side, remembering fully, the amount of human life lost over this issue?

So the central question, in summary:
If promoting a position in a civil manner means hurting others emotionally, are we justified--taking into account Freedom of Speech, and the obvious fact the the Truth is the Truth (regardless of who is actually "right")?

Morality v. Legislation

2007-12-12T12:03:52Z

The disjointing of ethical conclusions and legislation is recognized in ethical philosophy to be necessary. To say something is immoral isn't unnecessarily to say that it ought to be legislated against. With that in mind I've noticed most that argue in this debate oppose the need for women to abort, though different solutions are presented. Birth control education, availability of social programs that support pregnant women and mothers, as well as legislation have all been presented. With this in mind is there any level of agreement that abortion is at very least undesirable? If that is the case, then does that make some sort of statement about our moral reaction to the event itself? This is not suggesting legislation is or is not the solution, only that (independently of legislation) is abortion right ethically?

Abortion rights vs. Father rights

2007-12-04T17:37:39Z

A question I've been confused about recently.

If we have granted that a woman is solely responsible for deciding whether an unborn child should continue existing or not, which I think a lot of people here agree with, then how do we decide how much legal and/or moral obligation the father has to the hypothetically born child?

To clarify: Say that we have decided that the potential father has no formal or legal (or even moral) say into whether the potential mother can have an abortion or not. He can say his peace, because there is free speech, but the choice is ultimately up to the woman. Then, can we legally or even morally say that the man has responsibility towards that potential child?

On Cross-Cultural factors..

2007-11-30T03:38:40Z

Sex-selective abortions seem to be a common practice in India, a country that usually disfavors giving birth to females. My question, basically is if the unborn is not a human person, then whether or not someone destroys the fetus because of their sex should not raise any protests, right?

In one sense, it may be seen not too dissimilar from aborting a pregnancy due to the discovery of a potential deformity in a child. If you think the Indian practice to be unjust, why?

Constitutional Rights

2007-11-18T05:52:42Z

You may or may not know, but pro-life organizations in 5 states, including Colorado, are trying to define a fertilized egg as a person with full constitutional rights. Link

Specifically, they want to give fertilized eggs the right to due process.

I ask you generally what you think of this, and more specifically, just how do you think a non-sentient being could ever petition a court, fill out paper work, or seek representation, presumably in opposition to its mother.

More generally, I wonder if this changes the rights of children. It was my understanding that a child's access to due process and freedom of speech are severely curtailed due to their minority. If a non-sentient single celled organism has these rights, why not a child of 3?

Anti-Abortion Demonstration at Georgia State University

2007-11-16T21:27:12Z

Another Blogger's view of this demonstration

That this demonstration was allowed on campus boggles the mind.

I wanted to know what you all, on both sides of the abortion debate, thought.

40 days for life?

2007-11-10T03:12:15Z

This isn't a debate topic per se, but I felt like this comm would yield a greater variety of responses.
The nationwide "40 Days for Life" protest ended on Sunday, November 4. What were your thoughts on these protests? Were you involved in them, either protesting or escorting/counter-protesting? Do you think they were successful?

abortiondebate @ 2007-11-07T14:34:00

2007-11-07T21:43:58Z

What do you think should have happened in this situation?

"Lakshmi, who has been revered by some in her village as the reincarnation of a Hindu goddess she was named for, was born joined at the pelvis to a ''parasitic twin'' that stopped developing in her mother's womb. The surviving fetus absorbed the limbs, kidneys and other body parts of the undeveloped fetus."

8-Limbed Girl has Successful Surgery

These limbs were part of Lakshmi's conjoined twin sister. They had their own genetic code, etc. Are they their own "life"? Was murder committed by removing them? Why or why not?

(Obviously, this has implications as to how to define a human life. If a four-celled blob is an individual human life worth protecting, why not 4 limbs?)