Pro choice

[HS Thomas]

Has anyone watched the documentary channel 4 "My Foetus" ? Shocking!
Did that change the viewer from being Pro-life to Pro-choice ?
Which is what the documentary set out to do I think using shock tactics of images of foetus' up to 20+ weeks old and saying "Yeah, I can still live with this".
In order to protect the mothers health they do horrific things to the foetus in the womb. A top surgeon who caries out such procedures reckons that if a baby is that unwanted he cannot condone not doing what the parents / mother request.
[ April 28, 2004: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]

[Jeroen Wenting]

I'm not a religious nutcase (which is how the pro-abortion people like to portray those who are against abortion) but I do hold the opinion (and strongly so) that except under very few exceptions abortion is wrong.
The woman (and man) involved should consider the possible consequences of their actions before setting out and live with them.
Exceptions are (they may be others, these come to mind as typical):
- rape (only when there has been a reported crime)
- medical necessity (the mother would not survive or be greatly handicapped because of the pregnancy or birth)
- foetus is found to be severely unhealthy (genetic disorders etc).
First is pregnancy caused by outside influences over which the woman has no control.
Second is pregnancy endangering the parent
Third is pregnancy causing the birth of a child that would never be a healthy human being
Just choosing to not use contraceptives because you can get an abortion anyway is a big nono to me.

[Joe King]

Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:
I'm not a religious nutcase (which is how the pro-abortion people like to portray those who are against abortion) but I do hold the opinion (and strongly so) that except under very few exceptions abortion is wrong.
The woman (and man) involved should consider the possible consequences of their actions before setting out and live with them.

This is probably one of the most controversial topics around (aside from Iraq of course ).
I agree that its something that people need to think long and hard about. There are probably some people who just dont consider the side effects long enough.

Exceptions are (they may be others, these come to mind as typical):
- rape (only when there has been a reported crime)
- medical necessity (the mother would not survive or be greatly handicapped because of the pregnancy or birth)
- foetus is found to be severely unhealthy (genetic disorders etc).
First is pregnancy caused by outside influences over which the woman has no control.
Second is pregnancy endangering the parent
Third is pregnancy causing the birth of a child that would never be a healthy human being

I agree with the above, but what about a situation where a very young and poor person gets pregnant? If she chooses to bring up the child, it will not have a great deal of opportunities compared to a child that she could have in 5 years time after earning a bit more money. In cases like that the parent should ask themselves "am I able to offer this child a good upbringing?" If the answer is no, then perhaps the parent should consider abortion. On the other hand, its very hard to answer this question, as who knows what will happen.
Although I am pro-choice (in that I wouldn't ban abortions), I am in favour of more controls over it - the stage of pregnancy at which an abortion becomes illegal should be made earlier, before the point when the foetus could be considered "aware" (can we tell when this is?). The other change in law I'd make is to stop a woman having an abortion if the father objects, providing that he is willing to take total responsibility for the child after the birth. At the moment both mother and father have legal responsibilities for a child after it has been born, but the father has no rights before it is born, which doesn't seem quite right.

Just choosing to not use contraceptives because you can get an abortion anyway is a big nono to me.

Totally agreed, as this leads to people ignoring contraceptives and getting more STDs.
Going back to an earlier point...

I'm not a religious nutcase (which is how the pro-abortion people like to portray those who are against abortion)

This does seem to be a common (and unfair) portrayal, but its probably because anti-abortion campaigners quite frequently use biblical quotes to back up their arguments. This tends to annoy quite a lot of non-christians who dont like the idea of religion influencing the law. Personally I'm not sure how large the correlation between religion and anti-abortion views is - it'd be interesting to see some figures to show how many anti-abortion people are strongly religious and visa-versa.

[Max Habibi]

I just wanted to applaud the non rhetorical nature of this conversation thus far. 'Much appreciated.
M

[Axel Janssen]

Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:
I'm not a religious nutcase (which is how the pro-abortion people like to portray those who are against abortion)

I am pro abortion and don't portray anti-abortion people as religious nutcases.
So it would more correct to say:
I'm not a religious nutcase (which is how the pro-abortion people except Axel Janssen like to portray those who are against abortion.
Axel

[Thomas Paul]

I agree with the above, but what about a situation where a very young and poor person gets pregnant? If she chooses to bring up the child, it will not have a great deal of opportunities compared to a child that she could have in 5 years time after earning a bit more money. In cases like that the parent should ask themselves "am I able to offer this child a good upbringing?" If the answer is no, then perhaps the parent should consider abortion. On the other hand, its very hard to answer this question, as who knows what will happen.
So if the parents go bankrupt should they kill all their children? Considering the number of people that would be happy to adopt that infant, abortion seems an odd choice in this case. Is it really better to kill a child than have someone else raise it?
- foetus is found to be severely unhealthy (genetic disorders etc).
You mean like Down syndrome? Like my son has?

[Gregg Bolinger]

I also appreciate the tone of this thread thus far. Keep it up!
My opinion:
I am pro-life 100%. No special cases.
Rape - Not the babies fault. Kill the rapist instead.
Insest - Again, not the babies fault.
Medical Necessity - I would die for my children. Wouldn't you?
Genetic Disorders - Yeah, what Tom said.
As far as the "young parent" situation. Adoption is a much healthier choice than abortion.

[Ernest Friedman-Hill]

Oh, boy. Been trying to resist this one.
The term "pro-life" is pretty unambiguous. It's generally understood to mean "against abortion."
The term "pro-choice" is often misunderstood, however. It's often taken to mean "pro-abortion," but that's not actually what it means. You can be pro-choice but personally feel that abortion is not a choice you'd make. Being pro-choice means empowering a woman with the right to decide what happens to her own body. Personally, if I were a woman, I can't imagine a situation under which I'd choose abortion. But I can imagine many scenarios under which a reasonable preson might.
Gregg says "Medical Necessity - I would die for my children. Wouldn't you?" My answer is "yes, I would." But should a 12-year-old girl not have the right to say "no, I wouldn't?" Should a woman in frail health not have that same right?
Insisting that abortion is wrong under any circumstances is equivalent to saying that the fetus has more rights than a 12-year-old girl raped by her stepfather, or a paraplegic woman raped by a health-care worker. It's explicitly choosing the fetus' life over the woman's life. On what basis does this make sense? What value scale does one use to make this judgement? The paraplegic woman has loved ones; the fetus does not.
Being pro-choice means that I think it's up to that woman, or that girl, to decide whether to lay down her life -- not the rest of us.

[Max Habibi]

Originally posted by Gregg Bolinger:
[QB]I also appreciate the tone of this thread thus far. Keep it up!
My opinion:
I am pro-life 100%. No special cases.
Rape - Not the babies fault. Kill the rapist instead.
Insest - Again, not the babies fault.
Medical Necessity - I would die for my children. Wouldn't you?
Genetic Disorders - Yeah, what Tom said.
QB]

This seems, to me, to be an entirely consistant position.
M

[Tony Alicea]

"If you don't believe in abortion then don't have one".

[Jeffrey Hunter]

Hahha, I can almost see the moderators hovering over their monitors, foreheads sweating in anticipation of the all-out flame war that inevitably breaks out with a topic such as this.
Anyhow, I agree with alot of what has been said thus far, and disagree with others. One point I would make, now that I've snatched the floor for a moment, is that I'm thoroughly annoyed at the continual efforts of interested parties to impose their beliefs on society as a whole through legislation. To some extent, of course, abortion must be regulated. But it should be a decision based on science (e.g. at what point is the fetus capable of thought/emotion, etc.). Otherwise, who is to decide? The fanatic on the corner waving pictures of a bloody fetus at me as a I drive down the highway? No, thanks. Too many bad laws have been made as a result of emotional decisions, and the more bad laws that are made, well, the further backwards we seem to go.

[Michael Ernest]

Tony for President.
Abortion to me is not a moral issue; it's a medical procedure. Choosing not to have an abortion is still choice. Finding nonviolent, legal ways to discourage its practice is still reasonable political work. As with any medical procedure, the question to me is first whether it is safe and the techniques subject to review. Regardless of my feelings on the whole issue, I'd condemn the practice if I saw widespread, excessive misuse of it.
It's too bad the "pro-life" movement is often viewed as entirely caught up in shock-value photography, clinic blockades or maintaining "baby killer" databases. On one hand, obviously some people feel very strongly about the issue and they have to express it. On the other, some of those people think their sense of moral value should preclude any opposing discussion on the matter, and want to use the law to enforce those morals.
The decisions of a responsible, informed adult is and should be her business. Given the question of viable human life, though, I think it's essential some kind of check exist. The beauty of being a Roe v. Wade advocate in the 80's, mind you, was that nobody who wanted to speak up on this issue ever liked you: you were either 'soft on life' or 'soft on choice.'
You want a real education about abortion? Be a clinic escort: I did that for a year. I found some protestors to be the most reasonable, thoughtful, articulate and open-minded people I've met. This issue, though, drew a line for them, and they knew which side they were on. I also escorted some people who made it clear to me what was wrong with unfettered choice: for some, it amounts to no responsibility for anything but what they what at the moment. And some of those people clearly just got off on the conflict itself.
When it's in the papers or on the screen, it's easy to become polarized by what you're given to see and what you're told. But see it on the street for a while. You'll get a really different picture of what's happening.
[ April 28, 2004: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Tony Alicea:
"If you don't believe in abortion then don't have one".

If you don't believe in murder, don't commit one. But other people should be allowed to commit one if they disagree, Tony?

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Ernest Friedman-Hill:
The term "pro-choice" is often misunderstood, however. It's often taken to mean "pro-abortion," but that's not actually what it means. You can be pro-choice but personally feel that abortion is not a choice you'd make.

I'm not in favor of the death penalty but I'm in favor of giving juries a choice.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
Abortion to me is not a moral issue; it's a medical procedure.

Euthanasia is not a moral issue, it's a medical procedure.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
When it's in the papers or on the screen, it's easy to become polarized by what you're given to see and what you're told. But see it on the street for a while. You'll get a really different picture of what's happening.

Have a child where everyone is always asking you why didn;t you have an abortion. You'll get a really different picture of what's happening.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Jeffrey Hunter:
One point I would make, now that I've snatched the floor for a moment, is that I'm thoroughly annoyed at the continual efforts of interested parties to impose their beliefs on society as a whole through legislation.

You mean like their beliefs that murder and rape are wrong? Don't you think all legislation is based on moral beliefs?

[Jeffrey Hunter]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
You mean like their beliefs that murder and rape are wrong? Don't you think all legislation is based on moral beliefs?

It is the murky area known as Natural Law -- there are those things which are inherently wrong...such as murder and rape. True, much of the legislation regarding these offenses is based in large part on moral beliefs. But, when the scope turns away from Natural Law, and the definition of what should and should not be law becomes less clear, it is the responsibility of the legislature to disregard the blatant rheoteric spewed forth by passionate advocates of both sides, and look at the facts alone.
And no, I do not believe all legislation is based on moral beliefs. Legislation is based on any number of factors, so take your pick: fear, ignorance, economic gain, maintaining status quo, protecting classes, etc.
Why is it that if I take a memo off my co-workers desk without his or her approval, I get charged with a misdemeanor. Yet, if I hack into her email and read a message, I get charged with a felony? Much of the computer crime legislation in the early 90s was based in large part on society's fear and ignorance. The laws were already on the books, but new laws were written with stiffer penalties.
Or why is it that crack-cocaine will get you a prison sentence three-times as long as the equivalent amount of powder cocaine. Hmm, who uses crack-cocaine?
Emotion has no place in the legislature, but unfortunately, the same people that wave propaganda around on the street corners are probably the first to show up on election day.

[Helen Thomas]

Abortion is illegalin Portugal, a prohibition that never caused much fuss anyway. Thousands of Portuguese women had the procedure done, mostly by crossing into Spain.
Then prosecuters tried to enforce the law. 7 women in a sleepy fishing village were tried along with "accomplices" (including husbands , parents , taxi drivers who had taken the women to clinics. The polica caught them by staking out clinincs , interrogating women who looked suspiciously pale and seized their gynaecological records as evidence.
Public backlash was instantaneous and support for abortion right soared to 79%.
If any US or European state did criminalise it , it would face a similar backlash.
Most of abortion cases are examined out of context - should this be a private matter between parents and doctors who are best equipped to weigh in the balance ?
Or should society in general shoulder some of the responsibility for the life of the child ?

[Stefan Wagner]

Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:

Just choosing to not use contraceptives because you can get an abortion anyway is a big nono to me.

This argument is far away from reality. Abortion isn't done in few minutes, and no woman will abort by comfort/ as an alternative. (You know that contraceptives may fail?)
Another issue is again the reality.
You may not avoid abortions by law - you only may rule and influence it. Rich woman allways find an medicinist - maybee in other countries - to commit it. Poor woman do it in the dark, which means: high possibility of infections, infraction, and so on. Combined with the disadvantages of establishing structures of mafia and blackmailings, the honest wishes turn to their opposite.
Nobody LIKES abortion, but I get angry about the campaigns against.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Stefan Wagner:
You may not avoid abortions by law - you only may rule and influence it.

Sort of like murder, huh?

[Jason Menard]

I used to think I was pro-choice. Then one day I ran an ambulance call for a patient who had complications after an abortion and was in obvious pain. She apparently didn't have much in the way of remorse, and only seemed concerned with her own discomfort. I always thought I was a compassionate person, but I was surprised to find that I didn't have much for her. I remember looking at her and thinking to myself, "that's what you get for killing your baby." I thought of all the people who would have done anything to adopt the child she didn't want, but her selfishness and disregard for the unborn child robbed them of the opportunity just as she robbed the child of the opportunity for life. Again, I was surprised with these thoughts as I honestly believed that I was pro-choice, and this was the time I came to the cold realization that I obviously wasn't.
When it's in the papers or on the screen, it's easy to become polarized by what you're given to see and what you're told. But see it on the street for a while. You'll get a really different picture of what's happening.
[ April 28, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Michael Ernest]

Thomas, I'd hate to think you've taken my position to mean I think abortion should be allowed despite any and all possible abuse.
Euthanasia is in fact a medical procedure. It is, by itself, morally neutral. How the state weighs it own duty to protect human life against the interests of an individual who wants to die, shows no reasonable possibility of recovering from a vegetative state, or who is executed to protect the perceived interests of society -- I can see how they're all related, and I can see how they're not.
I don't understand why anyone in their right mind would question you and your wife's decision to bear and raise the child you created. Neither do I understand people who would insist that anyone else bear and raise a child without regard to the circumstances of its conception, threats to the health of the mother or infant, or some other reasonable factor.
How can a country focussed on liberties for all legislate that human conception is sacred, and that the so-called right to life is absolute? Put aside just for a moment your feelings on the matter, and tell me how our legal framework is supposed to integrate this view into its whole.

[Gregg Bolinger]

Originally posted by Ernest Friedman-Hill:

Gregg says "Medical Necessity - I would die for my children. Wouldn't you?" My answer is "yes, I would." But should a 12-year-old girl not have the right to say "no, I wouldn't?" Should a woman in frail health not have that same right?
Insisting that abortion is wrong under any circumstances is equivalent to saying that the fetus has more rights than a 12-year-old girl raped by her stepfather, or a paraplegic woman raped by a health-care worker. It's explicitly choosing the fetus' life over the woman's life. On what basis does this make sense? What value scale does one use to make this judgement? The paraplegic woman has loved ones; the fetus does not.

I'm not saying the fetus has more rights but rather the same rights. If a 12 year old girl is raped by her stepfather and becomes pregant, tell me how killing the baby makes this better. Same for the paraplegic woman. Every effort should be made to salvage the life of both mother and child.
The paraplegic woman has loved ones; the fetus does not
So you didn't love your daughter and son while they were in the womb? I bet you did.
But should a 12-year-old girl not have the right to say "no, I wouldn't?"
No one should have the right to end an innocent life of a human being. Period. Of course the falicy in the statement I just made is I assume that a fetus is considered a human life. This will be debatable until the end of time. But since Bush signed that Bill that holds people accountable for 2 murders when a pregnant woman and her unborn child are killed, it pushed legislature close to defining at what point an unborn child should be considered a human life.

[Jeffrey Hunter]

But see it on the street for a while. You'll get a really different picture of what's happening.

Yeah, I've been there, and it's an ugly place for sure. So miserable in fact that I found my opinions and attitudes were getting warped by dealing with the kind of people who really have little purpose other than to cause chaos and grief. People who would slice your throat for the ten bucks in your wallet then laugh about it while smoking away ten bucks worth of crack.
Yes the street is an eye-opening place, but conveniently hidden from most of society. This is for the better, mind you.
My point is, if I allow my opinions and attitudes to be molded by my experiences with this subset of society (where subset = {Oxygen Thief or Other Degenerate Type}), I'd be one racist, close-minded, cynical ass. Though I'm still cynical, but much less so.
Fortunately, I've chosen a different career, and my mind is once more open to new ideas and opinions. Emotions are a dangerous thing when they invade the legislature.
One of my old professors, a staunch opponent of the death penalty, once responded to the emotional outcry which poured in after he'd openly supported a condemned man's right to live.
They yelled, what if the condemned man had killed your daughter?
He responded, what if the condemned man was your son?
So you see, it works both ways.

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by Gregg Bolinger:
I'm not saying the fetus has more rights but rather the same rights. If a 12 year old girl is raped by her stepfather and becomes pregant, tell me how killing the baby makes this better. Same for the paraplegic woman. Every effort should be made to salvage the life of both mother and child.

This is where it gets interesting, in legal terms. I believe the girl could argue that an abortion is the only effective remedy to restoring the rights she had prior to the crime. Requiring that she carry a fetus to term imposes a state-decreed obligation on her because of someone else's crime. She can't turn back the clock, but she can try to set her life on the course the state initially swore to protect.
Never minding what a juvenile can actually present as a legal argument -- I don't know the law on that level -- there are (I hope) several compelling rebuttals to the premise that such a person cannot decide how to cope with events in her life no one had the right to impose on her. If an abortion at least gave her back the semblance of the life she had, I'd be for it.
Never mind the case where the girl in question clearly can't cope medically or emotionally with the demands of childbirth. It's not like nature just does its thing anymore; these days you have doctors telling you when that baby's coming out.
[ April 28, 2004: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
Put aside just for a moment your feelings on the matter, and tell me how our legal framework is supposed to integrate this view into its whole.

It's called respecting life. Otherwise we create a society where personal convenience is more important than human life. Actually, we already have that society so enjoy.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Ernest Friedman-Hill:
What value scale does one use to make this judgement? The paraplegic woman has loved ones; the fetus does not.

Assuming for a second that this was true, do you really want to rate whether a person should be permitted to live based on the number of loved ones they have?

[Bert Bates]

How do you guys see civil liberties fitting into this question? Does this topic supercede the importance of civil liberties, or does it fit into that framework?

[Ernest Friedman-Hill]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Assuming for a second that this was true, do you really want to rate whether a person should be permitted to live based on the number of loved ones they have?

No, that's my whole point. It's not up to us. If giving birth may prove fatal to the mother, a state that outlaws abortion decides that the mother is the one who should die. A state that allows it gives the mother, and her family, the right to make that (possibly tragic) choice. It's not my business. It's ultimately only hers.
Note that it's legal in this country to kill another adult in self-defense. If someone breaks into your house and threatens your life, you're within your rights to use whatever means necessary to save yourself. Nobody forces you to do so, but neither are you forced to sit passively by and allow them to murder you.
Now, if someone breaks into your body and implants something which may well lead to your death, shouldn't you have the same right to save yourself, if you so choose?
[ April 28, 2004: Message edited by: Ernest Friedman-Hill ]

[Michael Ernest]

TP: It's called respecting life.
ME: I'll look into it.
TP: Otherwise we create a society where personal convenience is more important than human life. Actually, we already have that society so enjoy.
ME: That assessment is too harsh for my taste. Going back to our 12-year girl example, it'd be an ugly day for all of us when a state lawyer damns her for prizing "personal convenience" above all else.
We do have people in our society for whom personal convenience matters more than most other things. Every passengerless SUV I'll see going home tonight, there's an example. It's a fact of life that the right to determine one's own choices is also the right to determine them poorly. Not all those choices are consequence-free, of course, and often those consequences screw more people than the chooser.
Alcoholism kills people who have never touched the bottle. Cigarette smoke causes disease in people with no interest in blazing up. The chemicals dumped in ground water...well, there's your society of convenience for whatever motivation: dysfunction, personal pleasure, ethics driven by bean-counters.
But I don't see how that condemnation can be applied in all cases to women (and girls, God forbid) who seek an abortion. My own experience as an escort didn't include tracking who I felt had substantive motives and who didn't: I was just there to make sure they weren't intimidated or assaulted by an occasionally frothy crowd. My feeling though, is that these women had chosen to continue their lives without carrying a child to term. The whys and wherefores are between them and their conscience.
When the state has total power to judge that, then we're cookin'. Anything deemed to prize convenience over life is one possible slippery slope.

[Gregg Bolinger]

Originally posted by Ernest Friedman-Hill:

I think that outlawing abortion right now is seen as taking away women's rights. But I think it's more about giving an inocent unborn child it's very own rights.

OK, I don't want to pick on you, Gregg, but I want to hear a straight answer.
Imagine this:
Your 20-year old sister, a junior in college, has a medical condition. Doctors have told her that, due to this condition, the chances of her surviving a full-term pregnancy are nil. One Saturday night she's date-raped, and soon finds out she's pregnant. She calls you on the phone, crying hysterically. Explain to her why you think she, rather than the unborn child, ought to be the one to die.
[ April 28, 2004: Message edited by: Ernest Friedman-Hill ]

[Ernest Friedman-Hill]

Damn. I did the editing-instead-of-quoting thing. Sorry. It's like King Midas curse, being a Sheriff.
Just so it's clear, in the previous message, the quote is from Gregg, not me, and the rest of the message is from me, not Gregg.

[Marilyn de Queiroz]

Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:
Exceptions are (they may be others, these come to mind as typical):
- rape (only when there has been a reported crime)
- medical necessity (the mother would not survive or be greatly handicapped because of the pregnancy or birth)
- foetus is found to be severely unhealthy (genetic disorders etc).
Even if you allowed these exceptions, my understanding is that these exceptions only account for about 3% of all abortions. It appears that most abortions are just another method of birth control.

Originally posted by Stefan Wagner:
This argument is far away from reality. Abortion isn't done in few minutes, and no woman will abort by comfort/ as an alternative.

I don't think that this is a true statement

[P. Sagdeo]

I'm going to link to the Scott Peterson trial here (I'm guessing most Americans know about it from the national news, etc. ). Anyway, Scott here is being charged with TWO deaths, one for Laci, his wife, and a second for his unborn child. Therefore, shouldn't a person who does an abortion get the same penalty (trial for murder) as Scott Peterson? I'm pretty sure Scott Peterson is getting tried (or the prosecution at least "tried" to get him tried) for killing his son anyway. This may sound a bit radical, but I think it is logical. My two cents.
-Parth
[ April 28, 2004: Message edited by: P. Sagdeo ]

[Jeffrey Hunter]

Come on, dude. You really think a woman should face the gas chamber for aborting a fetus by taking a black-market, morning-after pill because she could not do it legally and rather than raise a child in deplorable conditions, she chose to avoid the birth all-together? Sure, she's not going to make Mother-of-the-Year, but she's not exactly an axe murderer either. If it ever came to this, well, sign me up for the revolution.

[Marilyn de Queiroz]

Originally posted by Jeffrey Hunter:
You really think a woman should face the gas chamber for aborting a fetus by taking a black-market, morning-after pill because she could not do it legally and rather than raise a child in deplorable conditions, she chose to avoid the birth all-together?

I think the "morning-after pill" was not approved by the FDA because of safety reasons. And I don't think that's really the kind of abortion we're talking about here really.

"rather than raise a child ..."
Why not avoid getting pregnant in the first place? That's an excellent way to avoid the birth altogether.

[Warren Dew]

Originally posted by Ernest Friedman-Hill:
The term "pro-choice" is often misunderstood, however. It's often taken to mean "pro-abortion," but that's not actually what it means.

Good point. "Pro-abortion" would actually mean 'in favor of forcing people to have abortions even when they don't want to'.
It's always amusing watching people incapable of getting pregnant trying to make the choices for those who can.

[Kathy Sierra]

Originally posted by Gregg Bolinger:
IMedical Necessity - I would die for my children. Wouldn't you?

Some might argue that a parent would *live* for their children. Facing a choice between saving your unborn child and abandoning your other children (possibly to a horrible life in an orphanage... trust me on this, being an orphaned *older* kid is pretty awful and there aren't piles of nice people waiting to adopt older kids--look how many kids are abused and killed in foster care) would be tough. I'm pretty sure I know what a lot of existing children would say about this decision. If only one (parent vs. unborn child) can live, some might say that the parent who abandons their other children to save the unborn child *could* be viewed as selfish and cruel. The existing children may NEVER survive the loss of the parent, especially when it's the *only* parent and there's no dear aunt Suzie or any loving grandparents standing by.
So maybe for some people there are scenarios in which *living* for your children might be more selfless than *dying* for one of them...
But it's all a matter of perspective, though, and it's a very complicated issue for most of us, especially women.

[Mapraputa Is]

Tom: It's called respecting life.
Hey Tom. Do you think this feeling of respecting life is essentially religious, or you think that any atheist is eligible?
P.S. No slightest disrespect to anyone's beliefs was intended.
[ April 29, 2004: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]