merelyn | (no subject)

Heheheh.

Miss you, Petra.

You might want to inform her about how Bush is pushing the abortion issue by banning partial birth abortions, which they only do when the woman's life is in danger from her child. How healthy is that? And is it really going to be healthy for a woman who already can't support herself to try to support another life to? And what about the fact that no one is FORCED to have an abortion. Every surgery is dangerous. Are you going to ban plastic surgery? What about surgery that helps people to walk?

Grrrrrrrrrrrr. Okay, deep breath Molly.

I'm sorry but that's the dumbest argument against abortion ever. I love my school. No one was on campus yesterday because they were all protesting. (I would have too, except for the piles of homework eating my face.)

"And is it really going to be healthy for a woman who already can't support herself to try to support another life to?"

If she can't support a child, then why does she go through the process of creating it in the first place?

Because we are biologically built to have the desire to procreate, but we have created a society in which it is impossible natural selection no longer operates, so we have already procreated far beyond our means.

Oh...so she couldn't help but to get pregnant?

Maybe she was raped. Maybe the condom broke. Maybe the birth control didn't work. Or do you not believe in birth control? Because you know, every sperm *could* be a baby.

Look, I don't know who you are but I think that if you want to have a debate about abortions, there are better forums to do it that on my dear friend's livejournal. If you would like to continue this, you can email me at wordweaver06@yahoo.com. Or you could accept that we don't agree and go on your merry way, because I rather doubt either of us are going to change the other's mind.

I'm just a friend of a friend of your friend (I think that's how it goes).

I don't really want to debate, because as you stated we won't change each others minds.

For some reason I just had to comment though because of the foolishness of what was said, and not just by you.

Anyway, sorry to butt in. I'll be on my merry way!

Ta Ta!

For some reason I just had to comment though because of the foolishness of what was said, and not just by you.

I'm rather offended by that. Look, if you want to have a abortion debate here, fine. That doesn't bother me. But if you're going to come here to my journal and express your views, I would personally appreciate it if you would refrain from being insulting and calling other people's opinions "foolish" simply because they are not your own.

Thank you.

I will butt in now. I would be particularly interested in enlightening you if you want to discuss the topic of abortion. I am in fact taking a class entitled Intro to Ethics where we have studied the ethics of abortion in length and I would just love to show you how you're wrong.

Ta ta!
afc28@georgetown.edu

Holy shit! These entries got my blood boiling! I actually can't debate abortion here since everyone here is pro-choice and therefore I would be preaching to the choir, so these entriesnlet me yell at some pro-lifer vicariously. Go Molly, sorry that guy was being an ass. Mere, you are the only livejournal person I've seen who has had their response section turn into a political forum! That's impressive!

Emily

Actually I think Petra had something similar in hers, but thank you. Yay for your liberal college. :) Wish mine was like that sometimes.

I am personally pro-choice because God gave us free will and there does not seem to be a constitutional basis for an abortion ban, unless it is redefined as murder. I would never have an abortion, but that is my choice. I'm not sure if this makes me a liberal or a conservative. That said, I understand the desire some of you have expressed to be surrounded by others who share your views, but if we were all expected to feel the same way about everything, this would be Communist China, and nothing would ever change. You found my friend rude and condescending, but you are bordering on his mistakes.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding your meaning, and this is an overreaction prompted by the lack of respect some people have for others' ideals simply because they are different from their own. I think this is a problem in all societies. I do not mean to rant, and my friend should not have dismissed anyone's ideas as foolish, but was it necessary to call him an ass? I thought the internet was a place for people to meet without prejudice, because you can't pre-judge someone if you can't see them. Therefore, the internet should be the premier place to challenge ideas and raise debates. Maybe Mere's LJ is not the appropriate place for this discussion, but then, what is the appropriate place? We like to think that we are open-minded people out to get an education, but how much of an education is it if everyone around us believes the same thing and never raises questions?

Here's what I meant by saying that I wished my college was more liberal: going from my group of friends in high school, who all basically shared my views, to college, where I have maybe one close friend who has similar religious/political beliefs, is still a shock that I'm trying to get over.

Overall I know it's been good for me. It's forced me to re-examine my beliefs in the way you only do when they are challenged by others. However, it does get a little tiresome being the only agnostic liberal in the group. It would be nice to be in the majority every once in a while. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, and I certainly didn't imply that I would prefer living in an ultra-liberal version of Communist China. (Though actually, that would be very interesting for like a day.)

My livejournal is mostly read only by my like-minded high school friends. I guess I'm used to have this journal as a place I can where I go where people agree with me. Which is nice. Bottom line: Mere doesn't really like ideological conflict in her lj. She gets enough of it in real life.

And as for your friend, well I was trying, at least, to be fair about it, and I certainly didn't intend for anyone to be insulted. And while I didn't personally insult your friend, my friends did. And I didn't say anything against that, which is, I guess, where I am at fault here. I admit it: it was hard to be unbiased about a person I completely disagreed with, especially when I was also aware of their view on homosexuality, another topic that's extremely personal for me.
All I can say is that I did try not to judge. (I'm gathering you don't think I succeeded.)

If there's one thing college has taught me, it's that it is very hard to have convictions and still keep an open mind. Because if you're sure you're right and you're willing to fight for it, some part of you can't help but think everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. I know I'm guilty of doing that. (Which, ironically, should actually make me have more sympathy for your friend.)

Sorry about starting the "ideological conflict". If you don't want it on your LJ, then I shant say any more.

Take Care!

No, it's cool. Too late now, anyway. ;)

Well...I beat her to the punch...homosexuality was debated on my LJ...if you count that as a political forum.

Pro-life? Pro-choice? I think all people are inherently pro-life, and pro-choice is just a nice way of saying what abortion really is. Everyone has the choice to take another life.

Perhaps the umbrella of foolishness was a bit too ambiguous. I find the notion of people cheering for abortion as a fix to the consequences of their promiscuity foolish. This is what truly irks me. Teenage girls (or even older women) having sex, safe of not, getting pregnant, and having an abortion because they can't be bothered by the life which they created. If they can't be bothered by the consequences of their actions, then they shouldn't be having sex in the first place.

As far as rape or actual medical reasons behind abortion go. I'm not too sure. I think every effort should be made to ensure the survival of both mother and baby. I haven't studied into the various situations where medically one may be justified in terminating a pregnancy as the mothers life would be at risk. I would hate to be in the awful situation. When deemed by competent medical authorities that the life of one must be terminated in order to save the life of the other, many agree that it is better to spare the mother. But these circumstances are rare, particularly where modern medical care is available. Another sympathetic concern applies to pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. The tragedy is compounded because, in such relationships, freedom of choice is denied the woman who is innocently involved. But less than 3 percent of all abortions are performed for these two reasons. The other 97 percent are performed for what may be termed “reasons of convenience.”

What do you term "convenience?" We're not talking about an extra homework assignment, we're talking about raising a child to the best of our ability so that they can lead a happy and fulfilling life. And often whis is without the help of a father, because males don't have to necessarily deal with the consequences of their actions in a way a woman has no choice.

I agree that abortion should not be used as a form of birth control, but I would say that it is rash to say that most of them are like that. An abortion is no easy choice, even for a pro-choice person. That's why we're pro-choice, not pro-abortion. Also, abortions are extremely traumatizing experiances for woman, because their bodies produce a great deal of hormones during preganacy that give her that "glow" while pregnant. An abortion takes those away and it causes her to crash. I don't know very many women who would treat an abortion lightly.

Okay...just to respond to your post.

Totally agreed that abortion should not be used as birth control. But that is how a majority of women use it right? It might not be treated lightly and may be traumatizing, but that doesn't seem to prevent abortion from being the easy way out.

I'm as much against the idea that "males don't have to necessarily deal with the consequences of their actions" as I am against abortion.

I'm as much against fornication and adulty (sex before and outside of marriage) as I am against abortion and the idea expressed above.

See connections between those three? Why do you think conservative Christian's are pro-life in the first place? Is it perhaps that they believe that sex is only acceptable in the bonds of marriage? Are not the majority of the problems that lead to abortions, which have been cited in the replies on this forum, caused by immorality? Just something else to think about.

I'll only say more if you give permission in your reply.

Why do you think conservative Christian's are pro-life in the first place? Is it perhaps that they believe that sex is only acceptable in the bonds of marriage? Are not the majority of the problems that lead to abortions, which have been cited in the replies on this forum, caused by immorality? Just something else to think about.

You have every right to believe that and more power to you. That's why America has freedom of religon, so that we can agree to disagree. The place where I get upset is when those beliefs are forced onto people who don't believe them. If you believe that sex before marriage is immoral, then don't practice it. I don't happen to agree, but I'm not going to ask you to go out and have sex before you get married. I would expect the same respect in return. You say that problems that lead to abortions are caused by immorality. I don't think sex is immoral.

As for men not dealing with the consequences of their actions, when it comes to pregnancy they don't. I don't mean that they necesarily leave right away, but they have that ability. And even if they don't leave, men don't have to spend nine months with a growing stomach, swollen feet, nausea, mood swings, and the inability to do things that they once enjoyed. It's a fact, and I think the fact that more men are pro-life than women is no accident.

A woman who makes the choice to have an abortion is going to take many things into consideration. One of those is going to be the quality of life of them and there child. Maybe later they will be in a position where they are mature enough and secure enough that they can give that child a good life, but why loose two futures to a mistake.

And you are certainly free to respond. I was worried that a debate on Mere's livejournal was rude, but since she doesn't object, I do enjoy a good debate.

Hmm. A small part of me is tempted to agree with you on the "reasons of convenience" bit. This is the part of me that is very hard and cynical and privately thinks that sometimes in life you get what you deserve. And if you can't stick it out, you're a pansy.

But you can't go through life thinking in those terms.

Also (and I really hate to pull this card, but it's necessary) you are a guy. If you were the promiscuous irresponsible type (which I know you're not) you could get some girl (hell, girls) pregnant and it wouldn't make a difference to you. You wouldn't have to go through the social stigma of being an unwed mother, you wouldn't have to give up 18 years of your life raising a child when you aren't emotionally equipped to do it right. The mother would.

If they can't be bothered by the consequences of their actions, then they shouldn't be having sex in the first place- Well the fact of the matter is, there are plenty of men out there who could knock a girl up and happily not deal with the consequences. No one minds nearly as much about this. If you want to outlaw abortion, you should make it illegal to be a deadbeat dad as well.

Also, I believe that women have the right to enjoy sex without being terrified of getting pregnant. (Which is another whole argument in itself, I know.) Obviously, I'm not saying everyone should have unprotected promiscuous sex. In this day and age, unprotected anonymous sex is a stupid this to do. But just because you've had sex doesn't mean you "deserve it" if you get pregnant.

The bottom line: biologically, procreation is something in which women are about 100 times more important than men. (Not to be crude, but with modern technology the male role in procreation can be reduced to jerking off in a cup.) The is a gift/responsibility which is ours from a biological standpoint, one that we should therefore have the right to control. Men would have to be able to have an unplanned pregnancy in order for this not to apply. Not bloody likely.

What I'm trying to get at is that there is an inherent inequality in our society to day as regards women, sex and pregnancy. It is this inequality which I think is one of the several contributing factors in abortion.

And until in our society it is impossible for the burden of parenting to fall solely on the mother, until there is a better emotional/social/governmental support structure in place for women who didn't plan on being pregnant, women will continue to get abortions. (And I'm not even touching outside the "convenience" abortions you mentioned.) Fixing the above, if it ever happens, is going to take serious time and money.

So practically speaking, in order to really accomplish something, I feel that the pro-life movement should focus more on fixing the reasons why women have abortions in the first place and not just work toward banning it without dealing with the root of the problem. As I said before, outlawing it is not going to stop it from happening. It's just going to make things more unsafe.

If you want to outlaw abortion, you should make it illegal to be a deadbeat dad as well. Agreed 100%

Obviously, I'm not saying everyone should have unprotected promiscuous sex. In this day and age, unprotected anonymous sex is a stupid this to do. But just because you've had sex doesn't mean you "deserve it" if you get pregnant. I stand firm on my argument that NOBODY should be having promiscuous sex.

What I'm trying to get at is that there is an inherent inequality in our society to day as regards women, sex and pregnancy. For those that haven't realized it, yes this statement is true. It's a bigger and more daunting issue than many think. However, this issue is not as dismal as it appears if, yet again, fathers weren't so "free" to not accept responsibility. Again it boils down to promiscuity.

The is a gift/responsibility which is ours from a biological standpoint, one that we should therefore have the right to control. The responsibility should be shared between married couples as was intended.

So practically speaking, in order to really accomplish something, I feel that the pro-life movement should focus more on fixing the reasons why women have abortions in the first place and not just work toward banning it without dealing with the root of the problem. I partially agree. I think the pro-choice movement should also focus on the root of the problem. Then again, I'm thinking the roots I see vary from yours and the majority of pro-choice advovates.

Obviously our views on sex differ just as much as they do on abortion.

I partially agree. I think the pro-choice movement should also focus on the root of the problem. Then again, I'm thinking the roots I see vary from yours and the majority of pro-choice advovates.

Actually, the pro-choice roommate that started this agrees with me on the government/social support thing. Her pro-life organization does work to provide counseling and baby supplies etc. for mothers and is working to implement more things on campus to make it easier for women not to get abortions. And even if I disagree with her on this issue at large, you can't really argue against that. At least it's a more practical approach.

I'm curious, though. What exactly do you see as the root of the whole problem?

A lot of argument in this debate has been along the lines of "some women/girls are too young or ill-equipped to raise children". If that is the case, there's always the option of adoption.

I have several good friends who were adopted, a couple of them were born in Asian countries where socio-economic conditions are obviously more difficult for women than they are in America. I know they are grateful that their mothers chose to go through 9 months of pregnancy and the pain of labor, all for a child they knew they would never see again. My adopted friends who are women have told me they would never have an abortion because, basically, their mother was in the exact same position at one point, and that aborted baby could have been them.

I am more likely to support an abortion if the woman's life is physically in danger. And this has happened within the confines of marriage, so no more arguments about that based off of this post.

Adotption is a wonderful thing, for sure. But that requires a woman to go through the difficulty of pregnancy, the social stigma of being an unwed mother, the pain of birth, and then have the trauma of having their baby taken away from them and never even being able to hold it. That seems to me a very large burden to ask of a person, especially since they will have to give up a large portion of their life to do so.

Also, while I understand your friend's not having abortions because they could have been that child, you need to keep in mind that we are created with millions of eggs and sperm that could be a child. We are made this way to increase our chances of reproducing, not so that everytime we ovulate we attempt to get pregnant. Your friends are people and clearly the idea of them never being born is not something they would want to think about, but in the end, aborting a child or abstinance, they would not have existed either way. It's not a happy idea, but it's true.

Out of curiousity, are you against in vetro fertilization? This is a question for jamweb2003 as well.

I understand, but to a point. See, well... abortion is one of those issues I don't have a real fire and brimstone opinion on, so here goes nothing:

There are some risks to it still, including possible future sterility, and all the complications that exist with any other operation. Duh. And yes, coathangers are bad. (Also duh.) And you're right, for the woman involved, it's obviously safer when done properly in a clinic.

But the thing is, from a lifers PoV, there's a whole nother person to consider, the unborn one. So from their perspective, the combined pull is tougher on their heart strings.

[steps into philosopher clothes]

It kinda bothers me when people take such intense sides on this one, seeing as it is far from cut and dried and the definition of life is constantly changing, and far beyond our comprehension besides.

(no subject)

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

butting in when you dis my friends

Holy shit!

Re: Holy shit!

Re: Holy shit!

Re: Holy shit!

Re: Holy shit!

Re: Holy shit!

Re: Holy shit!

Re: Holy shit!

Re: Holy shit!

Re: Holy shit!

Re: Holy shit!

Re: Holy shit!

Re: Holy shit!

Having Options...

Re: Having Options...

no subject