Funkyterrance wrote: rdsrds2120 wrote: tzor wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:Sangers BASIC idea is still there.. that women should be able to control their own bodies and reproduction.
That's not her idea whatsoever! It's the exact opposite, she didn't want to give women who could potentially bring inferior children to the world to have any choice in the matter whatsoever. This is why the 19th century feminists including Susan B. Anthony was totally against abortion because she felt that women would be forced by men to undergo a potentially life threatening procedure (which was true at the time). A significant number of women who have abortions are pressured to do so by partners, family or economic pressures.
So maybe a woman on here can explain why a woman would want an abortion? I know why a lot of men want a woman carrying their to get one but is this the same reason that women want to get them? If the reason is due to pressures then aren't the women maybe doing the opposite
of what they want to do? If this is indeed the reason then the woman isn't controlling her body, social pressures (aka others) are.
First of all, a LOT of what are statistically classed as "abortions" are actually miscarriage. This is partially becuase the medical term for any pregnancy loss, for any reason is "abortion" and partially because statistics tend to track procedure, not the cause. A woman who has a D&C post miscarriage is classed as having a surgical abortion. There are almost always no statistics kept on why the woman had the abortion, no category for "the child was dead already". Statistics that attempt to do that are almost always based on interviews and other not quite objective information. The rate of miscarriages is conservatively given at aroung 30%, but many assert that the more realistic figure is around 50%. Note, that includes fully "natural" miscarriages and the higher figures often include miscarriages that happen essentially before a woman really knows she was pregnant (many times, the first indication that you were pregnant is a miscarriage)
Second, (and note, not debating this, just explaining what some people think) there is the whole "what makes human life".. I don't mean just the "when does life begin" question, but would you consider it just to bring a child into the world that would endure constant pain?.. that would not have any kind of abilities to support him/herself or the ability to interact wel with others. Some people take what I consider an extremely distasteful (to put it mildly) tact that any child "not perfect" should not be born. (no, that was not Sanger's position, Tzor.. but anyway). This is why some women do abort babies with Downs, etc. HOWEVER, there is a point at which all but the most ardent has at least pause. Just because we have the technology to keep a person alive doesn't mean it is truly "just" or "reasonable" to do so. For me, the issue would be pain/extreme discomfort. Even setting aside what I personally consider repugnant choices (like aborting a Downs child, gender selection, etc), the plain fact is that we are a nation of many values. One of our highest is that parents get to decide for their children. To deny parents the right to say "no, I don't feel giving this child life is the right and moral thing to do" means you consider your morals somehow "higher" than others. And, note.. we are not talking ignorant, uncaring, unthinking or even people without faith/general morals. I am talking about people who sit down with their doctors, their clergy if applicable, and think about what is truly best for them and their child. To claim that people who don't know anything about their situation can make a "better" decision is just counter to all this country stands for, it is the most supreme invasion of privacy and freedom of religion.
Thirdly, there are a significant portion of pregnancies that are actually life-threatening. Ectopic births are a well known situation, but there are many, many other situations. Granted, the number of these abortions is not a huge percentage, but it is a critical percentage because without doctors willing to do the procedures and trained in the procedures, many more women would die. Be careful with those statistics, though. To many people, for example, the idea of aborting an ectopic pregnancy before it actually becomes life-threatening is a "choice", made for reasons other than threat to life. To them, only immediate and definite threat to life are allowable reasons for an abortion. I have to say they lack completely medical understanding or the speed and seriousness of many of these situations. Namely, waiting until the woman's life is absolutely at risk means there is a good chance the woman won't survive. Even if she does, the cost associated with blood transfusions and other necessary emergency care are quite high, plus there is a far, far greater risk of damaging her ability to have future children in the rush of an extreme emergency surgery than if the procedure is done earlier, when the situation is identified, but before a rupture actually happens.
Then you get into a broad range of "social" issues. Contrary to stereotypes, many women who have abortions plan to have children later. Children born into poverty, to single mothers do better today than they did in 1950, but they still are at risk for far, far more problems than children in stable homes. If they have a child early, then that future life is often denied.. or at least that is the fear. And, if you look at the statistics and realities, then its not exactly an esoteric and remote fear.
Next, well, yes, you do have women I would personally consider insane or just plain incredibly immoral /stupid. But, ask yourself.. do you really want a child foisted onto them? There are MANY things far worse for a child than a quick death.
Finally, there IS the ultimate question of when life truly begins. Scientific evidence demonstrates that there just is not much "there" at 3 months. There is a heart beat, a semblence of a human-like form, but not real brain activity, etc. "Right to Lifers" often dispute this, but that mostly gets into a moral argument. Pictures claiming to show fetus avoiding scalpels, etc have been shown to be falsely represented. In fact, that is probably the biggest and most powerful argument of Right to lifers.. so many people just don't want to deal with this, that they find it far easier to say "just stop it all!!!".
The tragedy is that most people taking that stance really do NOT get what the full ramifications are of the decision.
First, as I noted, many "abortions" are actually miscarriages. I don't make that claim lightly. I gave a lengthy and detailed account of my experience earlier in other threads. I don't care to repeat it, but please don't try to claim I am lying or don't know of what I speak. In the US, we have reached the point when birth/pregnancy are no longer the life-threatening situations that they genuinely were in years past, that they still can be in other countries. However, part of the reason is the ability to have an abortion before situations get to truly and immediately life-threatening.
Finally, I harken back to the arguments when Roe V. Wade was new. I have spoken with many older nurses, most particularly my Grandmother. Their view? No one LIKES abortion, but the fact was that women were having them.. and dying because the procedures were not safe in illegal environments. Legal abortion would at least save one of the two lives. AND.. if you consider that many women would then go on to have other children, then more than one life was saved.
NO ONE sane "likes" abortion. Right to lifers try to make that claim, but really show how little understanding they have. Unfortunately, sense is not something common any more in today's political rhetoric, particularly from the right (the truly idiot left is largely mute.. not even heard in liberal circles much any longer).