Do you debate
For me, I'm PC~~always have been, always will be (I'm old enough to remember what happen to women who had illegal abortions and lost a very dear cousin,who was more like a older sister to my sister & I then just a cousin: to a illegal abortion before in the late '60) to me it's what is best for the woman, I was raised to use my brain to think for myself and a I was raised in a Methodist church (so I'm a Christian and I'm getting darn sick and tired of told that I can't be a Christian and PC!(my church leaves thats up to each of us)
For me it's personally none of mine or your business what another woman does with their body~~I've had some "encounters" with these "so called PL's" and they weren't pleasant. A few years ago I drove para-transit for the local transit system, I had to take a 80's something year old lady to a medical complex and I had to use my lift and that means I needed to use to park in the handicap parking spot & there was only 1, which was in front of a abortion clinic, these PL's who were picking the clinic called my employer called a complained that I was using their tax payer dollars to take girls for abortion and I almost lose my job (not what I was doing)
Now I'm driving a school bus for a ECEAP program~~with 3 to 5 year olds on it, at one point I was going past a clinic 8 times a day~~4 days a week, there was a PL picketer out there with this god awful photo (that was just HUGE) and my kiddo's saw it and were asking ME questions about it~~I had no choice but to go past her, so one day I went back there after I had dropped off my kiddo's and politely asked her if she could drop her photo when she saw my bus coming by and she told me to go "screw myself" In both cases I wanted to go back with my nice bus and run their backsides over and back over them a couple of times to get my point across to them (but I've not done it)
Both. I debate from the legal standpoint because I have so much to learn about law and it's so hard to get into my head, and because I think that it's important to do so as a sort of civic education for myself as a voting citizen. This is the practical part of the debate. It also pushes me to become more facile with websearching.
I discuss the moral aspect because it's interesting. I like trying to figure out what makes other people say the things they do, and dig down to their unspoken implicit underpinnings. This is less practical but has led me to refine my own position.
'she told me to go "screw myself" '
Come on, Sam, it's because she cares, just so, so much.
"I've got all five senses and I slept last night, that puts me six up against the lot of you."
"You're cute. I like you."
"What you se
Hm, I would say both.
She wanted 3 year olds to see it?
For me it's moral.
For me it's moral, but it's about the very basic idea that no one has more rights over me than I do. I believe that it is immoral indeed for any other person to impose their beliefs or ideals upon me and in doing so, expose me to great health risks.
>She wanted 3 year olds to see it? And used language like that?
Isn't that special.<
Yes isn't that special, they want them born and then just look down at them for wanting welfare or help. It's like Dickens said "don't we have work houses?"
Lucky I was alone when I went back and talked to her, or my boss would of killed for exposing the kiddo's to it~~and she knew about this wicked woman (I had informed her and our vise superior int. of our district about that was going on) and there was no way to reroute me around her. I know that my boss went and talk to her too and she got the same comment. (I never told her that I had tried to talk to her)
It's like a Mother's day card my mom gave me one year, I like my kids, I like my kids, I like my kids, (I'll try to like the pl'ers, I'll try to like the pl'ers, I'll try to like the pl'ers)
I debate abortion simply as a h8uman rights issue: I believe the woman who is pregnant deserves the right to choose whether to continue the pregnancy, as no one else can assume those risks in her stead, thus they cannot make that choice. I do not believe the z/e/f has an inherent right that supersedes the right of the woman to determine the course of pregnancy, and thus the unborn's rights do not usurp the woman's until later in the pregnancy.
Until such time that viability can be reasonably established for the fetus, with a minimal of medical intervention (24 weeks), it is each woman's right to choose whether she continues the pregnancy or terminates it. No one else, including the father of the fetus, can assume the health and physical risks which can be fatal or leave long-term health problems. Additionally, in many cases, no one else assumes the risks to her employment or financial solvency. Therefore, the right to make an autonomous choice shall lie with the mother during this period of non-viability.
Exceptions can be made later in the gestation if there is a significant threat to the woman's health; meaning a risk to her health in the immediate period of pregnancy or a long-term problem being caused by the pregnancy, delivery and post-partum period. Each pregnancy also carries a 28% risk of the necessity for a cesarean section. This is major abdominal surgery that can cause life-threatening infection, thrombosis in the recovery period, adhesions that may cause abdominal problems necessitating surgery later in life. Whether health risks are cited as her reason to abort, they nonetheless constitute a reasonable threat to her well-being, and as such, no one has the right to force a woman to continue a pregnancy that may result in injury to her. Additionally, HER life supersedes the importance of the fetus, even up to birth.
"The surgery itself, as opposed to medical problems that might lead to a cesarean increases the risk of maternal death, hysterectomy, hemorrhage, infection, blood clots, damage to blood vessels, urinary bladder and other organs, postpartum depression, post traumatic stress syndrome, and rehospitalization for complications. Potential chronic complications from scar tissue adhesions include pelvic pain, bowel problems, and pain during sexual intercourse. Scar tissue makes subsequent cesareans more difficult to perform, increasing the risk of injury to other organs as well as placenta previa, placenta accreta, infertility, ectopic pregnancy, uterine rupture in subsequent pregnancies and the risk of chronic problems from adhesions." http://www.ican-online.org/resources/faqs.htm
Also, if the fetus is determined by means of genetic testing (amniocentesis or chorionic villi sampling) to have a chromosomal abnormality, or is determined by proper ultrasound to have a significant deformity, the right to abort shall be her choice and thus is protected past the point of viability if necessary- as these conditions are not always detectible earlier in the pregnancy, as yet.
What you cannot do is force a woman to continue a pregnancy. It is about more than a baby- it's her body being pregnant for 9 months of her life, and the myriad of risks that go along with it. You cannot forcibly, legally, or morally take the autonomous choice over pregnancy away from the woman.
Regarding men & abortion:
Due to the unique process of pregnancy, whose risk can only be assumed by the woman, the freedoms and choices regarding the parenthood occur at differing times for each gender.Each gender, though, has control over the choices of parenthood until their contribution leaves their body. For the man, this happens when he ejaculates and then places that sperm inside the woman's body. At this point, he has lost any jurisdiction over it and its by-products, because of the unique risks that either gestation or pregnancy present to the woman. Likewise for the woman, she retains much choice until the product of her body- the egg which has evolved with the sperm into blastocyst, zygote, embryo and fetus, exits her body. In actuality- she has the LESSER of rights between the two genders- as her rights to choose abortion are curtailed in most states by gestational age and/or viability. The only guaranteed choice she has throughout her pregnancy is the right to choose to have her own life saved in lieu of that of the fetus.Once a child is born, BOTH genders are held equally responsible for the financial upbringing of that child.
If it was JUST AS MUCH his BODY, that might be a point. But, since pregnancy and it's risks, both long & short-term, both acute and chronic, mild and severe, rest with the woman- he doesn't get a veto.
Regrettable it may be, that he does not have this veto power, and unfair it may seem- as long as the continuation or termination of a pregnancy directly impacts the woman's body, the only choice will be hers. So as a woman bears the brunt of the health & physical risks, she will be challenged to make the ultimate decision.
She MOST EMPHATICALLY has EVERY right to abort- even in the case of disagreement with the man. When the man grows a uterus and may gestate & give birth, then, and only THEN, does his vote actually weigh more than the woman's.Face it: if a woman is pregnant, and there is a disagreement between the man & the woman as to whether to continue the pregnancy or have an abortion, there can NEVER be a fair & equitable solution. Never. In either option, one person's choice supersedes the other. In NO WAY should the winning vote come from the person whose body is NOT being used, whose body or life is NOT assuming the inherent short-term, as well as long-term, physical & psychological risks of gestation and birth.
While I feel empathy for any man in this situation, that empathy will NEVER outweigh my firm and inequivocal conviction that the woman, and the woman ONLY, must be the one who makes the final choice in the course of a pregnancy.
>'she told me to go "screw myself" '
LOL! I've got to quit drinking either coke or coffee while reading this board, it's always ending up on my monitor, and I'm planning getting a nice Apple laptop (I wonder if I can get something to protect the screen?)