fatherphil

brig, i was under the impression that people choose abortion more due to personal situations and desires rather than societal. would not the most popular reason be "i'm not ready to have a child yet"?

scigirl

No crap! We can't even get people to approve a national health insurance policy, and yet the anti-abortion movement somehow thinks that all the thousands of aborted children will be magically taken care of. I think fatherphil has been smokin something on a friday night! Here's a hint to all the pro-life people - why don't you volunteer to take care of a life that's already been born, but neglected by society? Homeless people (many of whom are mentally ill, and many of whom are children, you know the precious children you are "saving" from abortions), elderly in a nursing home, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

fatherphil and other anti-abortionists, I was wondering how you felt about the morning after pill discussed here.

scigirl

brighid

What makes you think that a woman doesn't come to that conclusion because of societal pressures? Such as those I mentioned previously: lack of safe and affordable daycare, a social and work structure that doesn't support family values or care, social stigma of unwed mothers, the difficulties in obtaining court ordered child support, the abysmal condition of the foster care system, etc.

Fewer women would chose abortion if those circumstances were addressed, and although it is a "personal" choice (which abortion can be nothing but) it is very much influenced by the societal conditions and pressures women find themselves in. Indeed, many women aren't "ready" to a child because they know they will only get 12 weeks leave, day care is exhorbitant, work frowns upon many women taking time off for the natural emergencies that come with having children, women know they can't count on the some fathers to pay child support and the state isn't much better, the slut/whore stigma of chosing life and the prejudice that goes along with it, the more difficult time in finding a life partner, the cost of pre and post natal care, the rising costs of medical insurance, the humiliation of the welfare system.... and the list goes on and on ... so if you meant to ask if the popular choice is for "selfish" reasons I would say no, but I would agree that it is for very important "personal" reasons that are more representative of caring for life then any pro-life stance I have come across.

Brighid

Edited to add: and how selfish of woman to not want to bring a child into the world she isn't ready to care for!!

fatherphil

folks, what if the pregnancy was similiar to that of a marsupial. would you consider flicking the offspring away as it struggled to make its way to the nipple? better yet, what if pregnancy only took a week? what would you suggest doing to all the unwanted newborn. not trying to come off the wall but thought these are the moral ramifications of abortion and the point at which one assigns rights to a fetus.

as for the morning after pill, i guess i'd have the same problems with it as with abortin in general as i have chosen to assign individual rights to the embryo once it has become genetically distinct from the parents.

btw brig, how about the father that feels unready to have a child even though his mate is insisting on carrying it through. should he not have the right to force termination?

brighid

No. When a man can carry a pregnancy to term he can make medical choices for himself. He has just as much obligation to protect himself from pregnancy as a woman does. Furthermore it would be immoral to force an otherwise physically and mentally healthy person to undergo a medical procedure against his/her will. However if you would like to continue that line of thought open a new thread and keep this one on track.

In the wild (even amongst the marsupials) when a mother is unable to care for an offspring (due to lack of environmental resources) she will very often do what you described and abort the fetus, or even leave it to starve to death.

As we are not marsupials and it will take millions, upon millions of years of evolution to bring about such a change your comparisons are untenable.

You seem to fail to understand the myriad reasons why abortion is and will continue to be a viable option for millions of women (and their partners.) Instead of diverting the conversation away from practical solutions you should direct your energies into creating a world where abortion is seen as an absolute last resort to be used in only the more dire cases. Children and families will be better served with the hands that help and the quited chatter of do-gooders without any concept of the reality women face in this situation.

So what are your practical solutions?

Brighid

fatherphil

also promote abstinance outside of marriage.

cheetah

That has not been proven to be successful. What has is providing access to prophylactics and education. Are you against that?

Opera Nut

Abstinence outside of marriage?

What planet are you orbiting and what are you smoking?

Loren Pechtel

Of course--the more suffering sex causes, the better!

brighid

I don't believe that promoting abstinence is necessarily a bad thing, but not as the ONLY thing as in the abstinence only programs being supported by right wing groups. Abstinence in conjunction with thorough sexual education, ease in obtaining various forms of birth control, the continued legal right to an abortion, as well as the social improvements I have previously suggested have been demonstrated time and time again to work EFFECTIVELY. Let's do what works and quite wasting our time, energy and tax payer dollars on an archaic system that has shown an unconscionably low "success" rate and I would say "success" in this case is an oxymoron.

Brighid