Abortion

[chicah 20]

I'll have to admit to two things: One, I probably belong to the most spoiled and selfish generation since the war. Two, the fact that I live in a country where we have the resources to tell each other that we can do whatever we want, just for fun; is probably a factor. But I have never understand why something is necessarily bad just because you want it. Biologically, it makes sense that we like sex, we do so we shall like it more and have it more and thus reproduce more children. (Humans isn't the only species having sex "just for fun", btw, we've known the dolphins and monkeys do for a long time, and new science shows probably a lot of other animals do aswell - keep in mind that monkeys and dolphins are two of the most intelligent species in the world, next to humans.) But what's the issue? We want to do it, we can do it. Why not? I mean, if both parts are willing there's no harm in it. I've never understood the abstinence thought. It is against nature for humans NOT to have sex, and I believe most of us need that intimacy throughout life. Studies suggest that when you try to suppress someone's sexuality, it just messes them up. A lot of them never develop sexually, and since the last sexual encounter they had was when they were masturbating as kids and caught in the act by their parents, who after that did everything to make them never do something like that again, their sexuality can be "trapped" like it was back then, and, worst-case scenario, they get a sexual attraction towards others on that same sexual level - aka children. But that's really off topic, just an analysis of the human sexuality.

The point is, like Meg and morriswalters have pointed out, that no matter how you feel yourself about the issue; abortion should be legal, because people should be allowed to make that choice for themselves, even though you may not like it. I disapprove and deeply disagree with what you say, but I will fight to death for your right to say it (which, btw, is NOT a Voltaire quote, he is often misquoted). You don't fight to take people's rights AWAY from them. And we have no right to judge, we don't know what it feels like.

[saltandsauce 0]

Originally posted by: Meg

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Men are jerks, for the most part. I'm not insulted in the least. quote>

That is a generalization.   I do believe that the current crop of young men is less jerk-like than the men of my generation.  (which is, of course, another generalization.)

But I do have hope for today's 20-somethings.

quote>

unfortunatley there is a traditional solution to the "love 'em and leave 'em" but it's rather unfashionable and is considered a dirty word for some and it's "marriage". being a "couple" means that there aren't any consequences if someone decides to leave (yes people change after they get married but that's part of the risk and where the WORK GOES IN) now i'm not condemning single mothers (or the few single fathers out there) but i'm sure at one point a lone parent would think that they'd appreciate someone else just to help with caring for the kids/money etc.

i wouldn't get your hopes up too high Meg, the current early 20s generation are really selfish and egocentric, they basically copy everything off those rubbish shows (the OC, 90210, one tree hill, the Hills, dull crap like that)

the biological reason for marriage is because it draws a clear line in the bride and bridegrooms head that things are serious and you should think in terms of "us and we" not "I and me" plus it means the whole community can condemn any unfaithfulness

EDIT: when i say "biological reason" i mean "biological benefit" in the sense that it makes sense for those who favour quality over quantity you can afford to rely on each other (parents)

every culture (ok there might be the odd one or two that don't) has some form of marriage, and i'm counting the polygamous etc. but what marriage does is make a public declaration of a relationship to the local community and people concerned and so people's attitudes change in some little way towards the people getting married and then they can help prop up the marriage (mind the kids for a while etc.)

we are badly wired for monogamy but not really wired for the opposite, it's written in anatomy (most female species announce when they ovulate whereas humans are difficult to tell at least without scientific equipment) and this means that it's more likely to make a male stay with her giving her time to "rope him in"

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: saltandsauce

unfortunatley there is a traditional solution to the "love 'em and leave 'em" but it's rather unfashionable and is considered a dirty word for some and it's "marriage".quote>

Except, you can't force anyone to get married. Or force them to stay married once they are.

i wouldn't get your hopes up too high Meg, the current early 20s generation are really selfish and egocentric, they basically copy everything off those rubbish shows (the OC, 90210, one tree hill, the Hills, dull crap like that)quote>

Selfish and egocentric? Maybe, I suppose... though I would characterize it more as just apathetic and (for lack of a better word) stupid.

the biological reason for marriage {...}quote>

Er, marriage is a social institution. There is nothing biological about it.

[citiesxlfan42 27]

My view is that if you got pregnant, than you have to go with it. And guys like me, if you ditch the girl when the child is being born, that is an absolutly HORRIBLE thing to do. This is only when two people want to do it. Then this applies. However, there is an exception. If someone rapes a gal and she gets pregnant, then it's fine to get abortion. Pretty much, if it is unwanted, only then it is abortion OK.
BTW, people should really save doing it (that's how I refer to it on the internet. Don't laugh) until marriage. People should not be doing it in middle school, like I've seen in some places. But there maybe another topic for that. I dunno.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: saltandsauce

unfortunatley there is a traditional solution to the "love 'em and leave 'em" but it's rather unfashionable and is considered a dirty word for some and it's "marriage".quote>

Except, you can't force anyone to get married. Or force them to stay married once they are. quote>

You can't do that where you and I live right now but it happened for millennia and continues to happen all the time in many places on the planet.

It's only been a century or so that women have had any form of economic independence.  Prior to that, women needed to be married (or something) in order to have access to food.  

i wouldn't get your hopes up too high Meg, the current early 20s generation are really selfish and egocentric, they basically copy everything off those rubbish shows (the OC, 90210, one tree hill, the Hills, dull crap like that)quote>

Selfish and egocentric? Maybe, I suppose... though I would characterize it more as just apathetic and (for lack of a better word) stupid. quote>

Either way, it's another generalization.   I have encountered a larger number of enlightened (for lack of a better word) 20-somethings here than I have men of my own generation.

the biological reason for marriage {...}quote>

Er, marriage is a social institution. There is nothing biological about it. quote>

In fact, the argument could be made that humans are not wired to be monogamous. 

[s.i.X 13]

The 7 year itch is apparently a hold over from our African bushmen days. After 7 years of raising a kid with a woman, the kid is self sufficient enough that the man can leave and have a kid with another woman.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Meg

You can't do that where you and I live right now but it happened for millennia and continues to happen all the time in many places on the planet.

It's only been a century or so that women have had any form of economic independence.  Prior to that, women needed to be married (or something) in order to have access to food. quote>

And I daresay most of us would agree it's better the way we now have it.

It is intriguing, though, how these things go both ways even if we don't usually want to admit it. We've made women more independent from men and, oh, look at that - now men find themselves able to operate more independently from women, too. You don't think about it or intend it, but untying the horse from the cart by necessity also means untying the cart from the horse.

I have encountered a larger number of enlightened (for lack of a better word) 20-somethings here than I have men of my own generation.quote>

But, see, the active population of Simtropolis is by no means a representative sample of the general population. Internet fora such as this one attract nerdier people, especially when you look only at the more active members. Normal average folks don't spend too much time with such things, so you don't see them here.

In other words, you only see more "enlightened" people here because the nature of the medium brings them here and keeps others away.

In fact, the argument could be made that humans are not wired to be monogamous. quote>

Or at least not wired to remain with one partner ad mortem.

Hard to say, really. Nature/nurture and all that...

[bluemoose 223]

Killing a baby???? no thanks!

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[ldvger 19]

I hesitate to jump into this fray, but as a woman who has chosen to terminate a pregnancy, fell I have some valid points for folks to consider.

There is a common opinion that "life begins at conception".  Please notice my use of the word "opinion".  Among scientists and doctors alike, "life", in and of itself, is not 100% defined or agreed upon.  Among various religions, opinions vary as well.  This slippery slope gets even slipperier as strides in medicine have allowed the prematurely born to survive at increasingly earlier stages of development.  The use, storage, and possible disposal of fertilized eggs is also problematic.  Keep in mind that when you take a side in the abortion debate, you have to think about ALL the ramifications of making the act illegal.  Are we to force women who become pregnant against thier will to have children they don't want?  Are we to deny women who could not have children at all without medical intervention thier opportunity to become parents?  Are we to force women who have little or no access to birth control to celibacy or having children they cannot care for?

Abortion is not about sex and taking repsonsibility for the possible outcomes of having sex.  Having a child should not be a form of punishment for having had irresponsible sex.  Human beings are hard-wired to want to have sex and for us to deny that primal need is impossible and, more importantly, dangerous to our continuance as a viable species.  Remember that human beings, for all we do have big brains and opposable thumbs, are still animals.  There is not a single animal on this planet that voluntarily foregoes sex. 

If life begins at conception, then how do we address the fact (and it is a fact) that not all fertilized ova implant in the uterus?  Many pass directly out of the woman's body during her monthly menstrual flow.  Shall we begin to police every woman from ovulation to onset of her menses every month to ensure she does not inadvertently cast out from her uterus a fertilized egg?  And what about those forms of birth control, such as IUD's, that prevent a fertilized egg from implanting?  Shall we make those illegal, too?  And what about those fertilized eggs that do implant, but don't stay attached to the uterine wall for the full 9 months?  How many women reading this have ever been late to get thier period and then got it, late and heavy?  I don't know what the statistical figures are, but the human female spontaneoulsy aborts fertilized eggs rather regularely.  I"m pretty sure it's happened to me a couple of times, even though I never knew for certain I had become pregnant.  If we are to accept the idea that life begins at conception, then how do we address the rights of fertilized eggs when they come into conflict with the rights of the woman whose body the fertilized egg requires?  Do we relegate the woman's rights as secondary to those of the fertilized egg's?  Do we denigrate all women to being then solely a host body for the fertilized egg to use as it needs for it's own development and survival?

And what of the instances wherein the pregnancy presents a threat to the woman's life?  Every pregnancy does, you know.  Death by childbirth is the #1 cause of death among women of childbearing age, worldwide.  In so-called first world countries where most women (but not all) have access to adequate pre-natal care and hospital delivery, death by childbirth is less common, but it still happens.  I gave birth to a child in 1975 and, had I been born even 20 years earlier, I would have died and most likely my child would have died with me.  But what of women who, even in this day and in this country, have to make that horrible choice between saving themselves or thier child?  I had to make that choice and I chose to live.  Lucky for both me and my son, the doctors were able to save my child, as well.  Not all women are that lucky.  Are we to take that choice away from all women?  The Catholic Church to this day holds that point of view, one reason I am (voluntarily) no longer a Catholic. 

And what of the women whose much wanted child is diagnosed in utero with some horrible life-crippling condition?  Are we to force that woman, and her child, to a lifetime of pain and misery?  This is another slippery slope, as who determines ahead of time how much pain and suffering any human being can endure and still find value in life?  If life, human life, is sacred beyond all, do we not then abrogate that very free will that every religion I am aware of says is God's greatest gift? 

It's not a simple question, abortion, with a simple yes or no answer.  There are extenuating circumstances that must be taken into account.  And in the end, I think the Supreme Court of this nation did the right thing with Roe vs Wade.  The decision to end a pregnancy is a privacy issue between a woman and her doctor.  Speaking from personal experience, it's a heart-breaking decision to face, let alone make and then carry through.  But, as a woman, it's my body, my life, that the fertilized egg requires to sustain it and grow to sufficiency.  It's my decision to make as to whether I allow that or not. 

Lora/LD

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[chicah 20]

ldvger: All honour to you for jumping into this mess, with your experiences. That's brave. And I wanted to hug you after reading your post.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: ldvger

If life begins at conception, then how do we address the fact (and it is a fact) that not all fertilized ova implant in the uterus?  Many pass directly out of the woman's body during her monthly menstrual flow.  Shall we begin to police every woman from ovulation to onset of her menses every month to ensure she does not inadvertently cast out from her uterus a fertilized egg?quote>

Well, miscarriages are different from abortions in that they are accidental, not intentional. The zygotes/embryos in question die accidentally, they are not actively killed.

But yeah, pregnancies do terminate quite naturally sometimes. Sad if you want to have a child - this is often just as grief-inducing as losing a(ny other) loved one, especially for the mother - but not unnatural.

And beyond that, we readily kill larger clusters of cells if they happen to be cancerous (or for any other number of reasons), so... it does start to seem a little silly to go crazy over doing the same to a zygote.

And what about those forms of birth control, such as IUD's, that prevent a fertilized egg from implanting?  Shall we make those illegal, too?quote>

The real contentious one is the so-called "morning after pill". The makers of it insist it is "not an abortion pill", and many people also don't consider it an abortion. It's certainly different from aborting a more developed fetus by other means that are nasty and ugly (whereas the pill is pretty clean and painless), so there is rationale for treating it differently (even if medically it is still technically an abortion). The Catholic church, at least, firmly considers it an abortion (and thus murder). They tend to be quite strict about these things.

There was a controversial court case in Connecticut about this a few years back: Catholic hospitals, being morally opposed to the pill, would not provide it to rape victims. One woman sued them over this. The state supreme court ended up ruling that the hospitals had to have the pill available, much to the outrage of Catholics (who insist the ruling violates the first amendment's religious establishment clause).

On the one hand, if a woman has been raped and doesn't want to be pregnant, she should have access to the pill. On the other hand, if the Catholic church is morally opposed to it, there are also problems with forcing them to administer it. It would seem to be a tough case.

What isn't mentioned, though, is that rape victims are generally quite conscious and do not need to go to a Catholic hospital if they want the morning after pill. That, and the pill is effective for 72 hours after sex, so even if they do go to a Catholic hospital, they would still have time to go get it elsewhere.

But Connecticut is a blue state, so the church's policy got painted as way more appalling than it really actually was.

If we are to accept the idea that life begins at conception, then how do we address the rights of fertilized eggs when they come into conflict with the rights of the woman whose body the fertilized egg requires? Do we relegate the woman's rights as secondary to those of the fertilized egg's?  Do we denigrate all women to being then solely a host body for the fertilized egg to use as it needs for it's own development and survival?quote>

The simplest way to address the conflict is to avoid establishing a legal preferrence on the matter (i.e., leave it legal, be "pro-choice").

The problem is that A) not everyone sees it as a women's rights issue, and B) not everyone is okay with permitting behavior they consider apalling to occur, even when it doesn't involve them. Especially if you equate abortion to murder, the latter is going to be a problem. There is a tendency to want to look at these sort of things in black and white like that.. but the fact of the matter is few things in this world are ever that simple.

And what of the instances wherein the pregnancy presents a threat to the woman's life?quote>

Well, I daresay most people who are generally pro-life would make an exception in such cases. Better to kill one to save the other than let both die. That's a much clearer justificaion than any other. You'd almost think there'd be no question of it... but then you have Pam Tebow. The ad, actually, turned out to be pretty benign. Doesn't even really have a pro-life message, it's pretty much just an ad for Focus on the Family.

Not about to let a potential for controversy go to waste, though, some feminist groups are blasting it for promoting violence against women. Really now?