Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Education

Journal perfessor multigeek's Journal: Why do you oppose abortion? 85

Journal by perfessor multigeek
I just wrote a long and deeply bitter explanation of why the anti-abortion movement is held in such low regard.

In it I made a true but limited statement: that in my experience, people who oppose abortion lie when asked why they do and what the limits of their opposition are.

I'm betting that slashdot will be different.

So, for those of you who oppose abortion, what are your reasons, and what limits (rape, underage children, etc.) would you place on that opposition?

Rustin
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Why do you oppose abortion? More

Why do you oppose abortion?

Comments Filter:
  • Personally I don't support abortion, but I'd never propose to make a law to the contrary.
    That also doesn't mean, should the situation arise, I would not support my wife or daughter should they so decide.
    As a guy, I feel it's rather difficult to speak unequivocally on this issue.
    Having said that, the anti-abortion groups are and have been way out of line.
    Even if they have a moral case, choosing to make it by killing others nullifies any 'moral' advantage they may have had.
    Of course, Nietzsche would say...
  • Here's my (flawed) take on the whole abortion thing.

    First, I don't like it. I was a wanted child, my parents loved me, yadda yadda yadda... but the idea of aborting a fetus (whether you consider it human or not is irrelevant to me, its life, its alive).

    But, I must be realistic. Living in the fantasy world that (many) anti-abortionists live in, were all abortion is evil and those who commit it are equally evil, is not a fundamentally good place to be in. We live in a real world, with real problems and we c

    • Well said, and that's similar to my view, I think I am opposed to abortion in theory, but in practice I want it to remain an option. We live in the real world after all, in the real world there is a need for safe, clean, accountable medical facilities that can perform the procedure. Abortion shouldn't be an easy way out, nor should it be easy to do it, but it should be an option.

    • We deserve abortion. We've created an environment that demands we have abortion, because if we didn't we would slowly but assurdely, breed the human race into oblivion.
      That's an interesting take on it and one I haven't come across before.
      Need for abortion as symptom of social malfunction.
      I think you'ld still need to account for the many women who wouldn't want to bring a given baby to term due to reasons like genetic risk, their genuinely not having the viable option of losing nine months to bring it to t
      • Need for abortion as symptom of social malfunction.

        The corollary (or complement) of this is that democrats are losing support because abortion has robbed them of 25% more offspring for their various voting blocks. (I'll let you fill in the blanks.)
        Basically, by supporting abortion they've killed off a future constituency.
        • The corollary (or complement) of this is that democrats are losing support because abortion has robbed them of 25% more offspring for their various voting blocks. (I'll let you fill in the blanks.)
          I've heard this same thing in remarkably cold-blooded terms from some Catholics, usually ones who went to Catholic schools and are from religion-permeated families.
          "Go ahead and oppose us. Abort every kid you can. We'll keep having kids and reduce you to a marginal faction in OUR world."

          Hm. My. Interesting theor
          • Catholic as I may be, I believe I heard this elsewhere. Although it may have come from National Review (a Catholic, conservative source, obviously.)
            And I don't know (or care) whether it is the case, but I had heard it raised, and at first blush thought, "Hmm, interesting, but is there merit to it?"
            Considering how profligate breeding seems to be, I don't think the market for abortions will dry up any time soon.
            (BTW, did you got to a Jesuit school?)
            • BTW, did you got to a Jesuit school?
              Nope. Five years of Scots Presbyterian and two of loosely Anglican (loose 'cause we were in New York, not due to any lack of High Church enthusiasms from our veddy British headmaster).
              Other then that, public schools, where the role of religion was limited to praying to get through the day.
              My familiarity with Ignatius' system comes mostly from many friends and girlfriends who *did* go that route, including one guy who then spent several years as a lay instructor in a m

  • Abortion is the killing of a partially formed human. Abortion is morally wrong in all cases but rape and incest. Abortion should be legal. That's right, legal.

    I am personally opposed to abortion and strongly feel that there are moral and societal reprocussions to it. However, the right for people to decide their own fate is paramount andf there are caes where it is neccessary as stated above. Legal abortions make them safer and easier for those victims of sex crimes. What makes it especially hard for

    • Abortion is the killing of a partially formed human. Abortion is morally wrong in all cases but rape and incest. Abortion should be legal. That's right, legal.
      Oh, man, I LOVE slashdot. Actual thought. Complexity. Acceptance of messy realities.

      As for this being a women's rights issue, I claim that this is bullshit. The man helped start the child's life and is therefore just as responsible for what happens to it post conception. Equal responsibility means equal decision making power, IMO.
      Gotta disagree th
      • Gotta disagree there given how much easier it is for the guy to bail out, though I a.) see your point and b.) see this as another corellary of the "abortion as need of screwed up society" thing since it shouldn't be so easy for men to bail in an ideal universe. Though it still leaves that unequal demands in pregnancy factor.

        If the law can be crafted such that men are responsible for thier wife's care after divorce or for the children they sired, then the law could include children born out of wedlock. Bes

        • If only all men did not run screaming from the prospect of a family. I have always believed that if a man was not willing or even eager for a family, then he should not have sex. Why?

          Having sex produces kids, sometimes even if precautions are taken (the pill doesn't work, condom leaks, forgot to use either). If you aren't looking forward to raising kids, then your head isn't ready to take that responsibility; If you aren't ready for the responsibility, then you shouldn't be getting hot and heavy with a
          • I've been hoping someone would open up this can of worms so I could make an on-topic post.

            Yes children are an outcome of sex, even with modern and proper birth control methods there remains a possibility that conception can take place (a remote possibility). Or to put it in another context, "Life is an STD with a 100% mortality rate."

            If only all men did not run screaming from the prospect of a family. I have always believed that if a man was not willing or even eager for a family, then he should not ha
            • Thank you for an excellent dive into one of the problems *behind* the problem.

              It was things like this that made me post my JE in the first place.
              Our thinking on abortion is clouded and distorted by a dozen or more unjustified and unstated "givens". Again and again we read that people "should" do this and people "should" be like that.

              We cannot address the issue productively as long as people keep discussing the implications of abortion but not of those underlying assumptions.

              While I am pleased and even ho
              • I can throw another wrench into the works, questions I'd like answered to give me a better understanding as to why people hold their viewpoints.

                If it's murder, are you a pacifist? Do you oppose war? The death penalty? Or do you simply view "murder" in this case as unjustified while not universally opposing the killing of a human being. And on that topic, you can take it further, into animals and even plants, there simply isn't any way to live if you don't kill anything (or abort plant babies to take it
                • I don't view human life as beginning until birth, or in the extreme case, the moment the fetus (or child, to play semantics) can survive without outside assistance (medical or mother's womb). This makes the most sense to me.
                  Now, I may be sounding stupid here, but does this mean that you do not consider a preemie as a "human life that has begun" until it no longer needs oxygen and other "heroic" assists?

                  If a pregnancy continues to term and the baby is born naturally, do you consider it not viable if, say,
                  • Outside assistance is meant to form a distinction between capable of surviving without extreme medical means and without the mother.

                    My response to Robi's similar question. I don't view it in the sense of alive or dead really, but more as a basic right to not provide care (a weird take off on adoption honestly). I don't aknowledge some basic unforswearable obligation to provide care to anyone, but rather view it as a matter of personal choice. Hence I draw the distinction there between legally living hu
                • I don't view human life as beginning until birth, or in the extreme case, the moment the fetus (or child, to play semantics) can survive without outside assistance (medical or mother's womb). This makes the most sense to me.

                  To ask a question, then is a child a human and under the protection of the law once it is self sufficient? Doen't babbies need milk, food, etc until they can feed them selves? A newborn is completely and totally dependant on parents, specifically the mother. So it is not considered
                  • Yes but anyone can fill that role. It doesn't have to be the biological parents. Outside assistance is meant to form a distinction between capable of surviving without extreme medical means and without the mother.

                    Once a baby is capable of that, they're human and alive in my book.
                    • Outside assistance is meant to form a distinction between capable of surviving without extreme medical means and without the mother.

                      So how do you define "extreme medical means" in this context? Assisted breathing? UV light? Heated bed?

                      Many (most, probably) preemies get by fine with these basics down into week 24 or so (one of my kids did) but how can you tell beforehand? What if you keep a child alive like this for a week and then discover that there's a problem sealing the bypass valve in the heart th

                    • Read some of my other posts in this thread, I've gone over why I think this and the motivations behind it in several other places.
                  • To clarify, I'll call it the standard of adoption. If anyone, regardless of financial situation could take up care of the child, the child is now alive enough in my book to justify legal protection.

                    Until then it comes down to what I view as the right to not provide care(a misnomer actually) and the providing of care to anyone or anything as a matter of personal choice (not state mandated).
                  • If it's murder, are you a pacifist? Do you oppose war? The death penalty? Or do you simply view "murder" in this case as unjustified while not universally opposing the killing of a human being. And on that topic, you can take it further, into animals and even plants, there simply isn't any way to live if you don't kill anything (or abort plant babies to take it to an extreme).

                  Now this one is fun. :-D

                  I am mostly a pacifist, because it suits my cause in 99.99% of the situations in life.

                  My cause being prom

                  • Of course, there are a couple of alternative solutions to abortion:

                    • Get people to stop having sooo much sex! Good luck :-).
                    • Mandate people to get their tubes tied/cut/whatever if they wish to not have children (as opposed to abortions after the fact). An ounce of prevention and all that... (this is the best alternative IMO)
                    • Keep waging wars, etc. helps keep the population down...
                    • Etc.
            • Why is a man who fails to live up to his obligations any more irresponsible for having had sex then the woman who knew that this was a possibility?

              I don't think he is more or less irresponsible. They are both irresponsible. Both people acted with out the best interest of the other in mind. Note that this does not mean only the best interest of the other was thought about before a decision was made. Most of these (childbirth/abortion)issues can come down to that. The cases where rape, birth control fa
        • Besides, a man who bails on a women because she is pregnant is beyond sympathy or pity.
          But what do you say about a man like my father, who clearly and repeatedly explained that he didn't want kids, was already paying to raise two of them, knew that the woman he was with was on the pill, and simply didn't catch her going off them?

          He's working on his postdoc, living on nowhere near enough money, traveling all over the place, trying to get back and forth through three countries (.U.S., Mexico, Panama) in t
          • But what do you say about a man like my father, who clearly and repeatedly explained that he didn't want kids, was already paying to raise two of them, knew that the woman he was with was on the pill, and simply didn't catch her going off them?

            Fair question. If he didn't want kids, why didn't he get snipped? Sounds like he had just as much of a choice as she did. If you want, you can go back far enough in time to when vasectomies weren't possible. Then the options are limited to abstention, but the ma

            • If he didn't want kids, why didn't he get snipped?
              That's why I pointed out that this was in the sixties, when such a procedure was far more likely to result in things like infection, impotence, and the like.

              But to me, this is a distraction. I see this as being about trust. He had a reasonable expectation that his own wife won't lie to him about a thing like this.
              She had even been married twice before and hadn't had a child with either previous husband.

              How far do you carry responsibility if that definit

              • But to me, this is a distraction. I see this as being about trust. He had a reasonable expectation that his own wife won't lie to him about a thing like this.

                How far do you carry responsibility if that definition of responsibility depends on treating EVERYBODY as untrustworthy? To me such an assumption would be far more destructive to a society then abortion ever has been.

                Well, if you subscribe to Hobbes' view of the world, then we are already living without trust. Hobbes tells us that the state of nat

                • Well, if you subscribe to Hobbes' view of the world...
                  I don't.

                  If it was me and my wife, I would resolve to raise the child as if I wanted it from the beginning. I would do everything that I have done for my other children because it is my responsibility as a husband and father.
                  Sure. That is the contract you made with your wife and the terms you agreed to. My father made no such agreement. Quite the contrary, he declared that a dealbreaker and my mother agreed to those terms.

                  But to me, it is still not
                  • My father made no such agreement.

                    Some men that have children are good to their wife and kids. Some are not. Many have hard lives through no fault of their own. Some are cruely beaten as kids (as my roomate was), some grow up with great parents who made some mistakes (friend of mine). Others have no parents (my grandpa was left for adoption before 2yrs old). Some have no involved parents (another room mate of mine raised himself after the age of 4, mom was a drunk and dad was a 100hr/week work aholic
                    • Above was supposed to be a reference to 1Peter3:15-16

                      Link is here [biblegateway.com]

                      robi
                    • By no means do I expect a perfect world. As it happens, once the deed was done and things had settled out, my father did more then many who wanted children to be a good father to me.
                      But, ya see, that wasn't the question.

                      The original issue was obligation. The question was: Is a man always obligated to support a child that was conceived as a result of his sexual act?
                      And to me, responsibilty comes down to transactions, promises, whatcha signed up for when ya walked in the door.

                      As I see it, he entered into
                    • And if others *are* being harmed, then the question becomes, who broke their terms? Who, *ahem*, fucked up?
                      It wasn't him.

                      I agree, she did. But what kind of comfort is that for the kid? "Your mom did bad - as punishment, she'll be raising you on her own." "Gee, thanks."

                      In a perfect world (well, better, anyway), the potential parents would indeed sign a written contract before having intercourse, stipulating the terms of the possible outcomes. However, a mother that wilfully lies and deceives her partne

                    • However, a mother that wilfully lies and deceives her partner in the manner you describe should not be allowed to keep the child. IMHO, she's just demonstrated that she is an unfit parent.
                      And that is where we differ. To me, that sort of "perfect world" would only work if even the very nature of human beings was changed.

                      I fear giving the government yet more power more then I fear the damage to the kids.
                      I'ld rather work to create a saner surrounding society and give those kids moe chances to have other po
                    • I find the idea of any kind of "licencing" or certifying of good parenting by the government extremely dangerous to even contemplate.

                      Me too, but in this case she's disqualified herself. She went and got herself pregnant for all the wrong reasons and should not get to keep her ill-gotten gains. We don't let bank robbers keep their loot, not even after they've served their sentence, to field an extreme analogy.

                      And I'm not saying the government should necessarily take the kid away from her, but I don't li

    • Equal responsibility means equal decision making power, IMO.

      Unfortunately, is *isn't* equal responsibility. The woman, by nature, has more responsibility in the 9 months through pregnancy and labor -- nobody else can take that on.

      Once the pregnancy's over, it's all equal, because each parent is capable of raising the child -- but if the woman is unwilling to take on the added responsibility, I don't believe someone else should have the authority to make her do it.

      • Unfortunately, is *isn't* equal responsibility.

        Perhaps not physically, but legally it is. Don't get me wrong, there is a distinct difference between father and mother. However, don't discount to quickly the obligation a father-to-be has for providing a home, food, clothes, medical care, etc for the mother-to-be. These are responsibilities that I, as a father, do not take lightly.

        but if the woman is unwilling to take on the added responsibility, I don't believe someone else should have the authority to

        • But perhaps this delves too deeply into the realm of personal feelings...
          What a silly thing to say.
          "personal feelings" are exactly the point of this thread.

          Go to, I say, Go to!
          Dive deep and share with the rest of us.

          Rustin
    1. If a mother aborts a fetus, in the first trimester, then the cops should not put her in jail.
    2. If a mother aborts a fetus, in the second trimester, then the cops should not put her in jail.
    3. If a mother aborts a fetus, in the third trimester, then the cops should not put her in jail.

    We shouldn't put any mother into jail who aborts a fetus. There are plenty of other more effective ways to sway mothers to not abort fetuses. I'm against abortion, but the government shouldn't have any say about the ma

    • 1. 2. 3.
      Aw, you *enjoyed* faking us out, didntcha? :-)

      We shouldn't put any mother into jail who aborts a fetus. There are plenty of other more effective ways to sway mothers to not abort fetuses. I'm against abortion, but the government shouldn't have any say about the matter. It simply has to be a personal choice.
      So what do you consider an effective and appropriate means to sway those women?

      Rustin
      1. If a mother aborts a fetus, in the first trimester, then the cops should not put her in jail.
      2. If a mother aborts a fetus, in the second trimester, then the cops should not put her in jail.
      3. If a mother aborts a fetus, in the third trimester, then the cops should not put her in jail.

      Unfortunately, this leads to:

      "4. If a mother aborts a fetus(kills a child), in the fourth trimester(within 3 months of having given birth), the cops should not put her in jail."

      in a very logical fashion.

      • Hey why not let her abort up to the 75th trimester (18th birthday). That'll instill discipline in your kids.

        Seriously though, there are differences between a fetus and an infant, unless you view them both equally. If you draw a distinction then that is not a logical conclusion.
        • What exactly is the difference between a third trimester fetus and an infant? There are plenty of infants born 3 months early that survive. I'm not exactly sure what the survival rate is, I'll grant you. But some survive, even with minimal medical assistance. And some full term infants need to go straight to icu when they're born. Where do you draw the line? Is 40 weeks that line merely because it's the statistical average for the length of pregnancy? That seems overly arbitrary tp me.

          Full disclosure

          • Where do you draw the line?
            Exactly.

            Where do you, pythorlh, draw the line?
            Why?

            Tell us your strong opinion.
            What was your opinion before you were asked to decide about the life that is now your child?

            Rustin
            • My personal belief makes abortion immoral at the point that it actualy becomes abortion, as opposed to birth control. That's right, for me, the line is conception. Which is why my wife and I chose not to have the abortion.

              (Well, in reference to your previous journal regarding the medical community, it also involved the fact that we knew that the doctor was at the very least exagerating. She was in no immediate danger. If the pregnancy had been ectopic, as the doc thought it was, she would have been in

              • My personal belief makes abortion immoral at the point that it actualy becomes abortion, as opposed to birth control.

                I'm not picking a fight, I just want to know when it is that it becomes abortion instead of birth control. Condoms, diaphragms and the like are clearly birth control because they prevent sperm from accessing the ovum. However, birth control pills that contain only progestin primarily work by not allowing a fertilized ovum to attach to the uterine wall. Estrogen + Progestin pills work on
                • All right... Stop asking hard questions already!!!

                  Just kidding. It becomes quite mudy here, though. I agree that a "morning after" pill is abortion. The pedant in me wants to claim that these typical hormone birth control pills are, too, but I have trouble defending that position. If everything works right, no ovulation occurs, therefore, no abortion. As I understand it, if fertilisation does occur, it is relatively common even in women not taking birth control pills that it may not "take." It's hard

                • Do these qualify as abortion or birth control?
                  I figure I'll get married then have a lot of sex and then when my wife and I decide we have enough children I'll get fixed. That assumes that we are blessed with the biological ability to have children. Some of my ancesters have not been able to for any number of reasons, and I don't take it for granted that I'll be able too. But I also take the approach that to have sex will result in children so be sure you are ready, then let chemistry and biology do the r
          • My oldest was born 3,5 months early and he's now a healthy 3-year old, in spite of weighing well under 700 grams at birth. He needed ICU-class care (ventilator, tube-feeding, the works) for a little over a month, but nothing really special. The survival rate (in Sweden) is somewhere around 90% and they regularly (probably around or slightly over 50%) save kids down to 22 weeks.

            While we were in, they had a little girl in the same ward weighing 600 grams and she's fine today, too. Most of them are. Some ha

        • Hey, why not let her abort up to the 75th trimester (18th birthday). That'll instill discipline in your kids.
          "So my son got me mad and I explained,'I brought you into this world, I'll take you out.
          I can get rid of you and make another one just like you.'"
          -Cosby from when he actually was a comedian (somewhat paraphrased for brevity)

          Rustin
    • If a mother aborts a fetus, in the third trimester, then the cops should not put her in jail.

      Why stop at the third trimester? Why not go for a 3 month trial period? If any mother feels that it isn't going to work out within the first 3 months after birth then she can bring the baby to the doctor and have the scissors plunged into the baby's skull.

      Why stop at a 3 month trial period? Why not make it an option until age 3. I know some people who have have kids in their terrible twos and are no longer w

      • Y'know, sarcasm can be cute, but the point of this thread is talking about what you DO believe, not attacking those who disagree.

        You're one of the most high-profile opponents of abortion I've seen on /. so I certainly do want you to join us.
        So I'm asking again,
        What are your grounds for your beliefs on abortion?

        When do you believe that the fertilized egg becomes a baby and why?

        What brought you to these conclusions?
        I would also love to know if you have ever felt these beliefs to be shaken, no matter
        • Y'know, sarcasm can be cute, but the point of this thread is talking about what you DO believe, not attacking those who disagree.

          Sorry, sometimes I can be provocative just to stir up discussion. I'm going to answer your questions now.

          What are your grounds for your beliefs on abortion?

          My basic grounds for belief that abortion is murder is that time, dependency, or size, should not define a human being's constitutional rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If if is just as wrong to k

          • In light of what you said, I'm curious, do you view the death penalty as wrong?

            Are you a pacifist, opposing all wars and the role of soldiers on principle?

            Are there any situations where murder (or killing a human being) is justified to you?

            If so, then the fundamental difference for you lies in the justification behind abortion. Choice, namely the decision to withhold care (which is basically how I view abortion) is the primary justification for me. Contrary to your statement, there is a difference betw
            • Choice, namely the decision to withhold care (which is basically how I view abortion)

              I am not sure I draw the same conclusion from your definition of abortion. IF abortion is the withholding of care, then an abortion would be lack of all pre-natal care for a mother. Lack of any counseling sessions. Lack of any preperation finacially or emotionaly. And a lack of health preparations (proper nutrition, no drugs, etc).

              Then out pops the kid.

              Wouldn't that be an abortion by your definition?

              robi
              • You oversimplify. The mother is still providing care, just incomplete care. She is still feeding the baby, providing shelter, warm place to grow, etc. No care would be removal. If someone else (or the state when medical science advances enough) wanted to take up that fetus (or baby) and provide it care (implantation? surrogacy?) and it was possible, I'd certainly support that.

                Can I clarify any further? Did that make more sense to you?
                • Well it (your response) doesn't seem to address my point (a small one I admit) that the definition you provided for abortion (Choice, namely the decision to withhold care (which is basically how I view abortion) is the primary justification for me.)

                  To me this sounded like a very general definition and did not satisfy my idea of a justification for an action like abortion.

                  But at some final point in any reasoned discussion where people hold opposing views where the outcome cannot be scientifically derived (
                  • Ahh, okay, I thought that might be what you were getting at, I wish I hadn't cut out large sections of my previous post. I'm not trying to arrive at an outcome, or a conversion if you will, just an understanding. This is why I think this and some of my reasons behind it.

                    I'm not going to convince you that abortion is a good, justifiable thing, nor are you going to convince me that it's not justifiable (nor am I trying to convince you of that). That's not the point of this conversation nor of this JE (s
                    • And why do you draw a distinction between a child and a fetus if at all?

                      I don't see a difference actually. I see the issue from a different angle, as opposed to the same angle but with different glasses (leaky analogy).

                      I would not consider ending at any time the development or (scientifically) the cell division of a human. I admitted to having conflicted thoughts regarding cases of rape. However, thanks to this discussion thread, I have (not for the last time I am sure) temporarily decided on a belief
                    • Thank you very much for your reply. It seems we're in agreement on more then I would have originally thought. I can't argue with the religious basis of your conclusions, it's futile and just ends up with one person or the other trying to convert the other to their point of view, behavior I abhor. Interesting conversation though, I hope it gave Rustin some insights.
                    • Odly enough, this has been one of the most articulate discussion on this topic I have ever had, and that includes discussions with the people sharing my beliefs. I think this is a result of substantiating my claims. When there is a chorous of "here here" and "I agree" statements, I tend to slip into intellectual laziness. Then later when the subject is breached by someone else outside of my normal conversational group, I am at a loss for meaningfull reasons.

                      This could be said about many things. Hummmmm
                    • I hope it gave Rustin some insights.
                      Oh, it has and it continues to.

                      First of all, this is the *only* forum in which I have seen opposition to abortion extensively discussed (and I have been in many such fora) in which not one person has retreated to or hid behind "God said so, so there!"

                      I am also intrigued to see the way the advance of medical science is causing reassessments for many, including me. What *is* a viable "baby"? That gets more ambiguous by the month and I'm really not sure where I stand o
                    • I've tried to avoid posting because but the defining "viable" got me .... Then I typed for a couple hours and realized it was only tangential to the topic. So *here* I'll do abortion and maybe later I'll put that stuff in a JE sometime ( if I follow thru, it'd end up in here [slashdot.org] -- it'd be mostly about rewriting the law to protect against a future-crime of cell theft and possibly redefine 'abortion').

                      My stance: Like a number of pro-chice people I consider abortions to be immoral, BUT want them to be a legal
  • It seems that more and more people are discussing how the circumstances of their birth shape their position on abortion.
    No surprise; I brought it up myself.

    Okay, here is where I fit in, such as it is.
    Whether I was a "wanted child" is, erm, debatable. My father was appalled when he found out that my mother was pregnant. He already had two daughters from an earlier marriage and found being a father to them more then enough and had told my mother this in utterly clear language. That he did not intend to ever
  • Again, on the "where do I stand" front, when my then girlfriend of three years thought she might be pregnant, it was MUCH harder then I had expected for me to stick to the conclusion that it was her decision.
    Eventually I got back there, but only after some very painful letting go.
    This was *my baby too* and if the burdens of pregnancy and early childraising hadn't been so uneven, I would have been hard-pressed to yield to her wishes.

    But, bottom line, I came back to the decision that since she would bear the
  • The only way to answer the question is to personalize it.

    Not everyone can, and not everyone has experience with the situation. I have been in it, from the man's perspective.

    I have suggested in several responses to this topic that often times the choice to receive an abortion is a panic decision. From personal experience I can say this is true. And it was tough to do. It was tough to have an opinion. We were in college. We had dated on and off for 4 years. She got pregnant, not that we weren't caref
    • Much of the opposition, as I understand it, to the "right to know" bill that just passed is that it requires not actual "counseling" as any of us recognize that word, but pretty much a word-for-word recitation of a pre-written statement (like the one on a pack of cigarettes or a Miranda warning) that was written not by doctors or therapists, but by politicians who oppose all abortion.
      In other words, they don't talk with the mother, let alone the couple, they read aloud at the mother.

      Also, the "counseling"
      • Note: I did not say I supported the current legislation. I said I supported the idea of mandatory counseling and was not aware of the specifics of the legislation. I support the idea of making that counseling accesible to those that must have it.

        Counseling in a Miranda rights format is bogus. Just like warnings on cigarette packs are bogus. They accomplish nothing. The atmosphere at an abortion clinic should not be reduced to the level of personalization experienced when you check your bags at the air
        • Note: I did not say I supported the current legislation. I said I supported the idea of mandatory counseling and was not aware of the specifics of the legislation. I actually wasn't sure from your first post, so I decided, incorrectly it happens, to assume that you were tending more towards "yes" then I now understand to have been the case. Sorry.

          We were too embarassed to talk to our friends and too scared to talk to our parents
          Now, this brings up an interesting point. The people who have demonized abort
          • Now, this brings up an interesting point. The people who have demonized abortion and even unplanned pregnancy, have THEMSELVES CREATED a climate of embarrassment and fear. This isolates people who have done nothing whatsoever wrong, sometimes even by the standards of most right-wingers, and thereby, funny how this goes, leaves them WITHOUT AS MUCH ADVICE from friends, colleagues, family, etc.

            So, having created the problem in the first place, those who actively oppose abortion then say, "See, pregnant wome
  • So I'm sittin' here, at 1:21 AM, when I should long-since have been asleep (what was that, robi, about responsibility?) and I'm noticing, do you guys realize that we have just created a sixty-plus post discussion of abortion on SLASHDOT without a single flame?

    I think that we all have real reason to be proud of ourselves. Even those of you (and we know you're out there) who dropped by this thread and decided not to succumb to the voice of the inner troll.

    My thanks go out to all of you. I am quite truly
    • do you guys realize that we have just created a sixty-plus post discussion of abortion on SLASHDOT without a single flame?

      I see one instance of a gasoline-drenched post, but nobody threw a lit match in. One isolated post out of sixty is very impressive.
  • and I oppose it for a number of reasons.

    First off, because it ends human life. No, seriously. Once the human is beginning to form, it is human. goes from fetus to baby to child to adolescent to adult. Just because it hasn't hit the baby point yet doesn't make it any less human.

    Second, because it is human, I only support its death in life-threatening or accidental situations. If I am in a car wreck and someone in my car or the other car dies, that is not an intentional death. Likewise, if the unborn

Slashdot Top Deals

Marriage is the sole cause of divorce.

Close