A Conversation for Talking Point: Should Abortion be Available on Request?

pro-choice

Post 121

broelan

>>So, basically I can tell you what to do and even force you to do it and I am right in doing so because I believe I am. At the same time, I am wrong somehow. This makes absolutely no sence. I need you to explain this for me.<<

let me clarify....
faith is a private freedom. any citizens of any country are subject to the laws and statutes of that country. following that... are you still with me?...
you can tell me what to do and force me to do it by phyiscal means and feel no remorse for it because you are justified in your faith. you still have to face the legal ramifications of your actions.

you can tell me what to do and force me to do it by legal means by lobbying for changes in the laws and hoping that more than 50% of the population is with you, and feel justified in your faith. i can then turn around and do what i want to do and justify it by my faith and face the legal ramifications of my actions.

extrapolating on that basis...
abortion is currently legal. you can physically restrain me from obtaining an abortion if that is what you feel you must do to appease your faith. but then you will face charges of interference and abuse, or whatever would be dictated by the means of physical restraint.

if abortion ever becomes illegal, you have by law stopped me from getting an abortion. but if my faith dictates that i must get one, i can obtain that service illegally, and face charges for doing so if i am caught.

get it?


pro-choice

Post 122

nosretep

Ormondroyd, ACE:

>>But isn't that precisely what the "pro-life" movement seeks to do to women?<<

No. I will not force a woman to not have an abortion. It is ultimately her choice. The fact that it is her choice does not mean that I agree or will do everything that I can to stop it.

I will attempt to change laws and minds, but I will not do so out of hate for anyone. Unfortunately, this is not true for everyone who is anti-abortion just as it is not true for everyone who is pro-abortion.


broelan:

>>everyone lives their lives according to a personal set of rules and standards. these rules and standards stem from one's beliefs. if you believe in a god, then you live your life by your faith in that god. you believe that your actions will ultimately be forgiven or punished by that god. if you belive there is no god, then you live your life by your own morals<<

I see what you are saying here.

>>and you alone will be accountable for your actions, they will not be judged by a higher authority. if your faith lies in logic, then your actions will be dictated, and defended by logic.

Not if there is a higher authority. Simple denial is not a defence. That is like saying that if you do not believe in the government, they won't stop you. If they do exist, and you do violate their laws, you will face the consequences. What if you actions hurt someone else? You are accountable to yourself as you said, but what of them?

>>my belief is that this faith is more important than the life itself. if you have no faith in anything, if you live without direction and without purpose, if there is no urge that drives you, then what is your life worth. this would be the mindset of someone in the process of committing suicide. not saying that in that case these thoughts are valid, but they are real enough to the person going through them.<<

I see what you mean now. I too consider my faith above my life. I do not however think that my faith is above someone else's life. I am willing to die for my faith, someone else is not. Also I think that putting faith above even your own life is entirely illogical. My faith is on things that I can't necessarily prove. Therefore, my faith cannot be proven with logic, but as you said, it doesn't have to be.

>>faith is a private freedom.<<

In the U.S. and many other countries now it is legally, it still is always everywhere at any time.

>>you can tell me what to do and force me to do it by phyiscal means and feel no remorse for it<<

Unfortunately this is true.

>>because you are justified in your faith.<<

You are justified to yourself, not to others.

>>you still have to face the legal ramifications of your actions.<<

You also have to face the physical ramifications of your actions. A person who commits suicide and believes that he will still live may be justified in faith, but that justification does not prove or show to that person's belief to be just, right, or reasonable.

>>get it?<<

Yes. Thank you for ending my mind warp.


pro-choice

Post 123

Blatherskite the Mugwump - Bandwidth Bandit

"if you have no faith in anything, if you live without direction and without purpose, if there is no urge that drives you, then what is your life worth. this would be the mindset of someone in the process of committing suicide." - A common fallacy clung to by theists, and completely unfounded in reality. I have no faith in anything, and I've found it to be an incredibly liberating experience. The theist wraps his cocoon of belief around himself so tight that he can't get out and truly enjoy life for what it is. And as a reformed Catholic, I can tell you that the overriding emotion in religion is not purpose, not peace, love, happiness, or any of the other claptrap that the preachers try to sell you on. It's guilt. The knowledge that you are worthless, undeserving, and imperfect when compared to the kindly old soul who made you. Remove faith, and you remove guilt. And I feel pretty good about myself.

I'm still curious as to why you think a zygote is any different than the things that make it up. A sperm exhibits more consciousness than a zygote does. Why is it perfectly acceptable to murder a few million of those with spermicidal jelly, but a zygote is sacrosant? Why is it perfectly acceptable for a woman to flush an egg out of her body every month? That's a little life in there... doesn't it deserve its shot at happiness?

And I'm sorry to see that you still think that a woman should bear a child, even when there has been no choice involved in the conception. I don't know if you noticed this, but producing and caring for a child is a permanently life-altering experience. If you force this on someone, what does that do for the child? For the parents? Do consequences mean nothing to you?

I've noticed that most fundamentalists are against abortion, and that's why I noticed that you were a fundy. I've also noticed that they tend to be male, which also happens to be true in this case. Fundies tend to pro-life because they're misogynist by nature... the bible and their preachers make them that way. And, of course, as a male, you don't have to try to identify with the plight of a poor young rape victim... or do you? Well, then, I've sought to teach with ethical dilemmas before, because it seems to work. So here is one more:

- One night, at a party, someone slips a little something into your drink. You fall unconscious. While in this state, the most disgusting woman alive drags you into a bedroom and has sex with your inert body. You wake up the next day horrified and ashamed as you wake up next to her. Two weeks later she comes to you and tells you she's pregnant. She refuses to take care of the baby, and isn't terribly keen on bearing it, but will do so if you want to keep the child and raise it. What do you do?


pro-choice

Post 124

nosretep

Colonel Sellers:

>>A common fallacy clung to by theists, and completely unfounded in reality. I have no faith in anything<<

You must have faith. Right now I am not talking about religious belief. If you do not completly trust in anything then you are lost. Perhaps you have faith that what you see exists or that when you die you cease to exist. There are absolutes. For example, death is the cessation of life. This is true for every situation. Perhaps it feels liberating to think that you will not physically die, but it will happen. That is an absolute. Ignoring that while pleading liberation will leave your body just as dead as the next person. Your beliefs in that regard are fruitless. As far as guilt goes, yes, you can destroy your conscience to the point that you no longer feel any remorse for anything. You say that you feel good about yourself, but what will that gain you. Religion is the hope of freedom. If you are right, your philosophy is the existance of freedom with the end of death. No matter how had you try, you will die. What then? I find it very confining to think that my 80-90 some-odd years are all that I've got.

>>I'm still curious as to why you think a zygote is any different than the things that make it up.<<

Biology:

A sperm and an egg have 23 chromosomes (normally) a zygote has 46.

Both the sperm and the egg will naturally die without fertilization, a zygote (normally) will not (at least for several years).

When you were a zygote, you had the same genetic code that you do now. Before fertilization, the sperm and egg did not.

You are right, however, in saying that naturally life does not come from non-life (unless you believe in evolution).

>>A sperm exhibits more consciousness than a zygote does.<<

Does consciousness depend upon movement? In posting 103 you said

>>it is my personal belief that life begins with consciousness. The physical, literal definition of life processes are occuring before then, but the fetus does not KNOW it is alive until it begins to be conscious. Until then, it exhibits no more signs of life than the sperm and egg that comprised it.<<

Do you believe then that the sperm knows that it is alive and the fetus does not?

>>producing and caring for a child is a permanently life-altering experience.<<

So is an abortion. I am not forcing the woman to keep the child. There are adoptive services available.

>>If you force this on someone, what does that do for the child?<<

First of all, the term force implys something physical. I will never physically stop a woman from having an abortion. But, I can tell you what an abortion will do for the child.

>>For the parents?<<

I think in you example the man ran out on the relationship, but I will tell you that the woman in bearing the child will carry it inside of her for approximately 9 months and then give birth. She then has the choice to keep it or place it in adoptive services.

>>Do consequences mean nothing to you?<<

Pregnancy is a result of sex, the act of sex produces a child and this consequence means a great deal to me.

>>Fundies tend to pro-life because they're misogynist by nature<<

How have I said anything that leads you to think that I hate women? I do not.

>>horrified and ashamed<<

I suppose that would accurately describe my fellings at that time.

>>Two weeks later she comes to you and tells you she's pregnant.<<

It is very difficult to determine if you are pregnant after two weeks. I would probably first check the results. If the child is mine (I guess half mine) then I would raise it if I had to. If the child is not mine then I would raise it if I had to.

I still want to know what the absence of choice at pregnancy has to do with the choice of abortion.


pro-choice

Post 125

Gone again

nosretep said "I still want to know what the absence of choice at pregnancy has to do with the choice of abortion.", but I think he was being deliberately obtuse. smiley - sadface

Those whose principles are not as clear as mine regarding abortion* need to carefully consider many different cases to come to an ethical conclusion. And so they should. The decision to kill a living being should never be taken lightly.

In the case where the woman was deprived of the choice to have sex - whether she was raped, sat in a pool of semen or visited by an angel of the Lord - there are clearly (to me) extenuating circumstances. Abortion is surely less wrong in such a case.

Note: I said "less wrong" *not* "right".

If your belief system leads you to say "I still want to know what the absence of choice at pregnancy has to do with the choice of abortion." - AND MEAN IT - then I am appalled at your lack of sensitivity and compassion. Of course, your beliefs are your own affair, as mine are mine.

Pattern-chaser

* It is my belief that the right of life and death over a newly-conceived foetus belongs to the parents, and abortion should be legally available for them if they so wish. Theirs is the right *and* the responsibility: they have to live with the consequences of their decision; you and I don't.


pro-choice

Post 126

nosretep

Pattern Chaser:

way back in posting 48 you said:

>>surely the correct term is "pro-choice", as there are several possible routes that can be followed, and the parent(s) have to choose one of them. Specifically allocating the responsibilities where they belong - we (who feel strongly about such things) can offer
advice; they (who are the parents, who have the responsibility, who will live with the consequences) make the choice: abortion or not.<<

Now you say >>Abortion is surely less wrong in such a case [of rape].<<

You are right. The responsibility ultimately lies with the mother. All that I will do for a woman who is in such a terrible situation [rape] is offer advice. My advise, however, may vary drastically from yours. You have stated who has the choice. You are right. What would be your advise?

>>If your belief system leads you to say "I still want to know what the absence of choice at pregnancy has to do with the choice of abortion." - AND MEAN IT - then I am appalled at your lack of sensitivity and compassion.<<

My question was, how does an absence of choice at pregnancy affect the choice of abortion. If a woman that I know gets raped, I will care. To walk away from her or say "kill the child, you will hate it anyway" would totally lack sensitivity and compassion. I will help her through her trying times. I will help her recieve proper counseling, and I will stress the humanity of her child. I will of course not hate her if she chooses to abort her pregnancy. I will however hate her choice and I will be very troubled by it. I suppose that I should call myself pro-choice eventhough I will do anything that I can (outside of physical restraint) to convence her to choose life for her child. I do, however, believe that abortion should be illegal. I do, however, realize that women will always have abortions. I do want to save the life of all un-born children. To call this cold and careless is (I believe) totally unwarented.

>>It is my belief that the right of life and death over a newly-conceived foetus belongs to the parents, and abortion should be legally available for them if they so wish.<<

This is where we disagree. I believe that it is the government's reponsibility to preserve life. Even when abortion was illegal, it was still done. People still exercised their choice. It is someone's choice to do whatever they want. They do have to pay the consequences.


pro-choice

Post 127

Blatherskite the Mugwump - Bandwidth Bandit

And now, nosretep has contradicted himself so much that the conversation has descended into nonsense. You say you are pro-choice, and a few of your answers convey the same... so why would you be pro-choice, and, at the same time, want to illegalize abortion? You're not making any sense.

I have to disagree with the comment on a zygote and its chromosome structure being the definition of a human, since people with Down Syndrome have an extra chromosome... are they not human? And besides, a zygote can die rather easily, and an egg and a sperm can be preserved indefinitely. So there goes all that foolishness.

And to clear up your obtuse view of what I said on the life of a zygote and a sperm... a zygote exhibits no more signs of consciousness than a sperm. A sperm DOES exhibit more signs of consciousness than a zygote... it propels itself along searching for a certain goal, and, once reaching that goal, begins to bury itself in it. That looks like consciousness to me. How do you slaughter millions of sperms and live with yourself?

"I do, however, realize that women will always have abortions." - So why can you be so insensitive and callous as to allow them to proceed with it through dangerous means when we could do so in a safe, sterile environment? We've already lost the child when she made up her mind to go through with it... why endanger the mother? Why make the consequences greater for an already traumatic experience by combining it with potentially deadly abortion methods and possible criminal prosecutions? What does that prove?


pro-choice

Post 128

Fragilis - h2g2 Cured My Tabular Obsession

I don't think I would "advise" a raped woman about whether to get an abortion at all. I would offer her emotional support. I would make sure she saw a doctor about the rape. I would make sure she gets in contact with a psychologist or similarly appropriate person for counseling. And then I would wait for a while to see how she is feeling and whether I can help in any additional capacity.

I would consider it unfeeling and cruel to lecture a woman about abortion or tell her what I would do in her case *after she had been raped.* The woman would no doubt be going through very serious emotional trauma. Only she would know when she is ready to consider her pregnancy, and I probably wouldn't know unless she told me.

She certainly doesn't need a supposed "friend" to come in and force her to confront anything she isn't ready for. Nor is she necessarily ready to defend herself against unwarranted persuasion. I would be at all surprised if attempting to give advise prematurely resulted in a loss of the friendship altogether. Who could blame her?

I would leave the advising to people who give that sort of advise for a living. I wouldn't feel comfortable giving it myself. I would be okay with recommending some sources of information, and perhaps one or more local places where I knew the woman could be advised with compassion and understanding.

What if she asked me what to do? I would validate her feelings of anger, hurt, and fear. And then I would tell her that neither I nor anyone else can make the decision for her. And I would hold her, helping to shoulder the horrible burden she has been put under. But in the end, I would not answer the question. If I did, I wouldn't consider myself her "friend."


pro-choice

Post 129

broelan

nosretep, just a few things i feel the need to bring up....

>>it is very difficult to determine if you are pregnant after two weeks<<

this is completely untrue. it is very possible to get an accurate positive result within one week of conception. this can be achieved by a professional clinical test, or a very good home test. i know this from experience; i tested positive 12 days after conception with a home test that was followed up less than a week later with a clinical test verifying the results. i had a beautiful baby boy about nine months later.

i also would like to know why it is that you refer to your opposition as "pro-abortionists", when you yourself said >>I suppose that I should call myself pro-choice<<. why do you get to be "pro-choice" and we have to be "pro abortion"?

*accepting* a woman friend's choice to have an abortion does not make you "pro-choice". it makes you a supportive friend who cares enough not to give his friend more grief. "pro-choice" advocates are exactly that: advocating a woman's right to choose. choose between keeping the child, having the child and giving it up for adoption, or having an abortion. if you insist on using the term "pro-abortion", maybe you should consider (in an attempt to present your arguments more accurately) "pro abortion rights" advocate. i don't think that *every* woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy should have an abortion. THAT would be a pro abortion stance. i feel that every woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy should have a CHOICE. i am pro-choice.

i believe however, that this particular point has already been debated between anthony and lady k a few pages back. you may want to check their posts for further clarification.


pro-choice

Post 130

broelan

i got so distracted, i forgot to finish making one of my points... which was this:

>>*accepting* a woman friend's choice to have an abortion does not make you "pro-choice". it makes you a supportive friend who cares enough not to give his friend more grief.<< (my previous post)

you, on the other hand, are pro-life. you are pro-life because you feel that she should not be given the choice to make the decision that you would be supporting. i would imagine that if your close friends know your views, they wouldn't even tell you if they were in such a position. they wouldn't need your support, because they know it would be peppered with grief. i would also imagine that at least one person you know has had an abortion and you would never suspect. do you know why this is? because if someone is confident in her decision that they are doing the right thing, it doesn't cause woe and emotional scarring that would haunt the rest of her life. being forced (by law or any other means) to do something you feel is wrong, that you don't want to do, and that you will live with for the rest of your life, THAT causes emotional scarring. THAT causes depression.

you, nosretep, are pro-life, not pro-choice. you want thousands of women to give up their freedom of choice so you can sleep at night. but i think that if you had any inkling of the pain you WOULD cause, were abortion made illegal, and knowing that your support made it so, and knowing that thousands-plus women couldn't sleep at night because their situations were so intolerable, do you really think you would sleep more soundly then?


Removed

Post 131

nosretep

This post has been removed.


pro-choice

Post 132

Ormondroyd

Yes, nosretep, I did acknowledge that abortion can be risky, in response to a previous post from yourself. By that, I meant that any surgical or medical procedure inevitably involves SOME degree of risk to the patient.

But the risks involved in a legal abortion performed by a doctor under sterile conditions are obviously likely to be much, much less than those that would be involved in an illegal back-street operation carried out by a criminal, where any kind of post-op after-care for the patient is likely to be rendered impossible by the need to conceal an illegal act.

I live in Britain, where abortion has been legal since 1967. But I have read reliable accounts of the kind of things that happened here before our Parliament made that enlightened decision. There were operations carried out using knitting needles, women dying from internal bleeding after being damaged by inept illegal abortionists: all manner of horror stories.

You've already acknowledged that abortion will continue to be practiced regardless of its legal standing. So: knitting needles and back-street butchers, or clinics and doctors? Which would you prefer for someone you cared about? And if the answer is the latter, then how can you continue to argue that abortion should be illegal?


pro-choice

Post 133

nosretep

Ormondroyd:

>>I meant that any surgical or medical procedure inevitably involves SOME degree of risk to the patient.<<

Yes indeed. My objection was to the term "safe" used by Colonel Sellers.

You are of course right in that some abortions were very risky before abortion was made legal in the respective country. I do not believe that all abortions were performed in back alleys. I think it is reasonable to assume that some abortions were performed in doctor's offices before it was made legal. We also have this view of the medical profession as being this highly respectable, legal field. This MAY be unwarrented.

>>Which would you prefer for someone you cared about?<<

Neither. I do not want anyone to kill their child. I cannot support someone's choice for an abortion. Therefore, I can't choose from the choices you gave me.

>>how can you continue to argue that abortion should be illegal?<<

I think that safety is a side issue from the legality of abortion. The main issue from a legal standpoint is whether abortion kills a child. If it does, how can you support this whether legal or illegal?


pro-choice

Post 134

Gone again

I'll have to ask you all to bear with me here. I try very hard to make my writing clear and easy to understand. I *hate* it when I fail at this (as I often do smiley - sadface), and I hate it just as much when someone else does it for me!

Nosretep started his post with:

| Pattern Chaser:
|
| way back in posting 48 you said:
|
| >>surely the correct term is "pro-choice",
| as there are several possible routes that
| can be followed, and the parent(s) have to
| choose one of them. Specifically allocating
| the responsibilities where they belong - we
| (who feel strongly about such things) can
| offer advice; they (who are the parents,
| who have the responsibility, who will live
| with the consequences) make the choice:
| abortion or not.<<
|
| Now you say >>Abortion is surely less wrong
| in such a case [of rape].<<

Nosretep says "Now you say..." as though "Abortion is surely less wrong..." disagrees with what I said in the preceding quote. I can't see this at all. Then, just to add to the confusion, nosretep goes on to say:

| You are right.
| The responsibility ultimately
| lies with the mother.

So he starts off apparently disagreeing, then does an abrupt U-turn and agrees. I don't mean to be nasty here, nor to stoop to personal insults, but this is disinformation and I won't stand by without commenting.

I've finished ranting. You can all come out now. smiley - winkeye

Pattern-chaser

P.S. nosretep asks "What would be your advise?" I said that "we (who feel strongly about such things) can offer advice" and I meant it. I didn't mean that giving advice was mandatory, especially in hypothetical situations where a young life *isn't* at stake.

The only advice I have to offer is that you should stop trying to constrain other people's choices. They, not you, will answer to the Lord on the Last Day (or substitute a respectful reference to your chosen faith). If you open your mouth, I don't doubt the Lord will tell you to shut up and mind your own business. If I could be certain it wasn't just gratuitous rudeness, I'd do exactly that.


pro-choice

Post 135

Fragilis - h2g2 Cured My Tabular Obsession

I don't feel that safety *can* be a side-issue to the legality of abortion.

When we discuss a possible law, we must consider the practical ramifications of enacting the law. If the law is impractical or causes more social havoc than it cures, then it is reasonable to decide not to enact the law.

On a practical level, we know that at least some abortions will continue if an anti-abortion law is enacted. The question, then, is whether the law is beneficial overall in an atmosphere where abortions continue. And in deciding whether it is, we must factor in the practical matter that more lower-to-middle income women in an anti-abortion state will go through avoidable surgical trauma resulting in internal infection, lost fertility, and occasional death.

For some people, this toll on women's lives is acceptable in light of the social gain represented to them by the birth of additional babies. For other people, the toll is an unacceptable cost to pay for the law. Since we don't really know how effective an anti-abortion law would be in curbing abortions, this is a debatable issue and one we should consider.


pro-choice

Post 136

broelan

nosretep,

>>I would also imagine that at least one person you know has had an abrotion and you would never suspect because she is so traumatized by the event, that she cannot share her feelings.<< (post 131)

while it is possible, i doubt it. i know several women who have had an abortion. in some cases i'm the only person in the world who knows about them. women don't talk about their experiences because, well, for starters it's none of your business. also in the current environment they may fear ostrizication by others for a decision that they alone had to make. as you do not know me, and unfortunately in this life it's likely you never will outside of this particular format, you can only take my word for the type of person i am. i am the type of person that other people talk to. people share their feelings with me. even people i don't necessarily know very well. i'm easy to talk to. i've spent a lifetime building a reputation of being someone trustworthy, caring, supportive, honest, and comforting. also, being the ONLY person in this conversation having ever been in the "theoretical situation", i can say that women are more likely to share their thoughts with someone who shares something in common with them.

if someone i know were "traumatized" by an abortion, there would be other things going on. i would know something was up not by the lack of an admission, but by other symptoms. "trauma" manifests itself in many ways. silence would not be the only indicator. i am sure i know women who have had abortions that i am unaware of. but these women are comfortable with their decisions, and feel that their past is none of my business.

everyone who has an abortion has second thoughts. but let me further state that everyone who makes a decision has second thoughts. 'should i have the ham for lunch, or the casserole?' two hours later 'maybe i should have had the ham, the casserole has given me heartburn.' or 'should i go to a university or a trade school after graduation?' ten years later 'what if i had gone to a university instead? i'd probably be making more money, but would i be happier?'

as you can see, second guessing is human nature. even i, to this day, sometimes wonder what would be different if i had chosen differently. the answer is everything. it doesn't "traumatize" me because i am happy with my position in life, i am content with my surroundings, and i am comfortable with who i am today.

>>I think that safety is a side issue from the legality of abortion. The main issue from a legal standpoint is whether abortion kills a child. If it does, how can you support this whether legal or illegal?<

how can safety possibly be a "side issue"? you have conceded that abortion will continue whether or not it is illegal. how can you discount the safety of the women that legality will affect? ormondroyd asked you if you would want your theoretical friend to obtain an abortion from a clean clinic or a dirty backalley. you answered ...

>>Neither. I do not want anyone to kill their child. I cannot support someone's choice for an abortion. Therefore, I can't choose from the choices you gave me.<<

you fail to understand that your desires will ultimately not make someone else's decision for them. they may affect someone's decision, but they will not dictate it. since the choice to abort or carry is not your's to make, you must abide by her decision. it is HER decision. when she makes that decision, do you want her to have a clean environment in which to see that decision through, or do you want her to risk her life in an unclean and unnecessarily risky environment?

>>Therefore,I can't choose from the choices you gave me<<

but you must. these are the choices available for someone who has reached that corner. if you still insist that abortion should be illegal, then you force your friend to the backalley, to risk and possibly lose her own life. if she loses her life to this situation that you endorse, how can you consider yourself pro-life? life has been lost.

now, before you get your hackles up about the "endorse" comment, let me explain. you freely admit that even if abortion were illegalized, that abortions would continue to occur. with a lack of clean environments for them to occur in, backalleys will become the answer for more women than you can imagine. if these clean environments dissapear because of legislation that was brought about by "pro-lifers", who admit that illegalizing abortion will not stop abortion, they are in effect endorsing the situations that risk the life of these women.


pro-choice

Post 137

broelan

fragillis,

you posted while i was compiling my last post. you have stated the case much more eloquently than i could, as many of my responses are emotionally driven. while my response is valid, in comparison to yours it does seem a little over the top. my apologies. please excuse my occasional (read that "frequent") emotional outbursts. but it *is* an emotional issue, in addition to a legal one. my responses come from being affected by the issue, where yours come from being near the issue. not that you aren't affected, but you would be affected in a different sense, or on a different level, if you follow my line of reason.


pro-choice

Post 138

broelan

sorry....

fragillis, what i meant to say is that i value and respect your contributions. thank you.


pro-choice

Post 139

Fragilis - h2g2 Cured My Tabular Obsession

broelan,

Thanks for the kind words. I should add that I have enjoyed your contribution also. It is incredibly brave to speak up in any context as a woman who has had an abortion. You represent a perspective that I never could, and which is often sorely lacking in this sort of debate.

If you get emotional now and then during the discussion, it's perfectly understandable. You have had a life-changing experience that you can't share with the rest of us armchair theorists.

Tell you what. You keep going with the emotions, and I'll keep up with the factual logic. Perhaps together we can paint a better picture of the complexities involved with abortion. smiley - smiley


pro-choice

Post 140

Ormondroyd

The strange thing for me is that sometimes (not always) the facts can be that much more emotive BECAUSE they're stated calmly and clearly. One particular sentence from Fragilis' (excellent) post #135 really stopped me in my tracks. Describing the likely consequences of driving abortion underground, she said:

"For some people, this toll on women's lives is acceptable in light of the social gain represented to them by the birth of more babies."

smiley - cross How true. smiley - grr How very, very smiley - steam true.

If I may paraphrase one of my favourite lines from the "Hitch-Hiker" books: I think I need a brisk walk around the block and a smiley - stiffdrink of perspective and soda.


Key: Complain about this post