(no subject)
Apr. 25th, 2004 11:51 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
merelynAGG! My conservative Christian roommate is currently on the phone with her boyfriend, talking about the weekend she spent counter-protesting the March for Women's Choice in DC.
Really irritating me, especially when she talked about being interviewed. This is apparently what she said to some reporter: "We're protesting to raise awareness that abortion is not safe and not healthy for women."
Like it's going to be more safe and healthy when you outlaw it and women are forced to get back alley rusty coathanger abortions???? WTF? Say what you want about whether it's right or not, but making abortion illegal isn't going to solve anything!!!!!!
*deep breath* Sorry. Just need to vent.
Really irritating me, especially when she talked about being interviewed. This is apparently what she said to some reporter: "We're protesting to raise awareness that abortion is not safe and not healthy for women."
Like it's going to be more safe and healthy when you outlaw it and women are forced to get back alley rusty coathanger abortions???? WTF? Say what you want about whether it's right or not, but making abortion illegal isn't going to solve anything!!!!!!
*deep breath* Sorry. Just need to vent.
Holy shit!
Date: 2004-04-27 04:16 pm (UTC)Emily
Re: Holy shit!
Date: 2004-04-27 06:06 pm (UTC)Re: Holy shit!
Date: 2004-04-27 08:06 pm (UTC)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?
Re: Holy shit!
Date: 2004-04-27 09:03 pm (UTC)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.)
Re: Holy shit!
Date: 2004-04-27 09:14 pm (UTC)Take Care!
Re: Holy shit!
Date: 2004-04-27 10:01 pm (UTC)Re: Holy shit!
Date: 2004-04-27 08:41 pm (UTC)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.”
Re: Holy shit!
Date: 2004-04-27 09:17 pm (UTC)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.
Re: Holy shit!
Date: 2004-04-27 09:28 pm (UTC)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.
Re: Holy shit!
Date: 2004-04-27 11:35 pm (UTC)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.
Re: Holy shit!
Date: 2004-04-27 09:58 pm (UTC)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.
Re: Holy shit!
Date: 2004-04-27 10:12 pm (UTC)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.
Re: Holy shit!
Date: 2004-04-27 10:29 pm (UTC)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?