Abortion: Yes or No?

[Valley Oak]

Is abortion a morally acceptable practice? Is it murder? Should women have access to abortion? Under any circumstances? How late, if at all?

Although there are many questions surrounding this issue, the poll will be limited to a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer from participants.

You may write in your own option, if you wish.

Edward

[AnnaLisaW]

The decision to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Maybe it is murder. Maybe some fathers think they are protecting their unborn children. Here's something to think about:
If a person comes into my home and threatens me and my loved ones with harm, do I have the right to remove him by any means necessary? How so when that person enters my body? Was it rape, incest, coercion? With our legal system, we cannot ask a woman to prove how she got pregnant before we allow her to seek assistance. If it's not my home; if it's not my body; it's not my decision.

What is the father's choice? Make sure the woman wants your baby BEFORE you have sex. If you don't want a child, don't let her get pregnant. The male chooses first; he makes his choice at conception.

[Valley Oak]

Dear Anna,

I very strongly support a woman's right to choose. I also support abortions being paid for publicly so they are 100% free to any woman, especially the poor, who cannot afford it and often end up giving birth to a rapist's child or a simple accident (we all have accidents when it comes to sex).

Any unplanned pregnancy, especially one that results from rape or incest, is nothing more than a parasite and should be treated as such: elimination.

In Sisterhood/Brotherhood,

Edward

The decision to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Maybe it is murder. Maybe some fathers think they are protecting their unborn children. Here's something to think about:
If a person comes into my home and threatens me and my loved ones with harm, do I have the right to remove him by any means necessary? How so when that person enters my body? Was it rape, incest, coercion? With our legal system, we cannot ask a woman to prove how she got pregnant before we allow her to seek assistance. If it's not my home; if it's not my body; it's not my decision.

What is the father's choice? Make sure the woman wants your baby BEFORE you have sex. If you don't want a child, don't let her get pregnant. The male chooses first; he makes his choice at conception.

[OrchardDweller]

Why should abortions be paid for publicly? You mean with taxpayers' dollars? Do you think it's fair to make others, who might feel deeply that abortion is wrong, pay for someone else's abortion?

How is a woman getting pregnant from having sex an "accident" that should be "eliminated" like a "parasite". You think maybe that's what nature intended; you have sex and then sometimes you get pregnant!

Technically some would think abortion to be murder, considering that a foetus has legal right, yes.
Morally, well, that would depend entirely on one's morals..

Respectfully,
The parasite that got away

Dear Anna,

I very strongly support a woman's right to choose. I also support abortions being paid for publicly so they are 100% free to any woman, especially the poor, who cannot afford it and often end up giving birth to a rapist's child or a simple accident (we all have accidents when it comes to sex).

Any unplanned pregnancy, especially one that results from rape or incest, is nothing more than a parasite and should be treated as such: elimination.

In Sisterhood/Brotherhood,

Edward

[Valley Oak]

Are you the result of a rape or incest?

Edward

Why should abortions be paid for publicly? You mean with taxpayers' dollars? Do you think it's fair to make others, who might feel deeply that abortion is wrong, pay for someone else's abortion?

How is a woman getting pregnant from having sex an "accident" that should be "eliminated" like a "parasite". You think maybe that's what nature intended; you have sex and then sometimes you get pregnant!

Technically some would think abortion to be murder, considering that a foetus has legal right, yes.
Morally, well, that would depend entirely on one's morals..

Respectfully,
The parasite that got away

[OrchardDweller]

Not that I'm aware of. I was certainly "unplanned" though. My mother, who already had 2 children, was well into her forties when she discovered she was pregnant. And she had another "accident" (my sister) 3 years later!

Are you the result of a rape or incest?

Edward

[Valley Oak]

If you are so against abortion then why don't you vote against it in this poll?

Not that I'm aware of. I was certainly "unplanned" though. My mother, who already had 2 children, was well into her forties when she discovered she was pregnant. And she had another "accident" 3 years later!

[OrchardDweller]

I agree with Anna, that abortion is a deeply personal choice. Therefore I cannot vote yes or no on your poll. I mean, allowed by whom? The government? I feel the government has no authority to either ban or 'allow' (fund) abortion.

What made me respond to you is your choice of language when you say that any unwanted pregnancy is a parasite to be eliminated. Some might disagree.
Personally I find it disrespectful to Life itself.

If you are so against abortion then why don't you vote against it in this poll?

[Valley Oak]

Truth is that you are not being forthright about your principles. You speak as if you were a "closet anti-choicer."

I agree with Anna, that abortion is a deeply personal choice. Therefore I cannot vote yes or no on your poll. I mean, allowed by whom? The government? I feel the government has no authority to either ban or 'allow' (fund) abortion.

What made me respond to you is your choice of language when you say that any unwanted pregnancy is a parasite to be eliminated. Some might disagree.
Personally I find it disrespectful to Life itself.

[OrchardDweller]

Truth is I cannot and will not decide for someone else that abortion is right or wrong. What I think about it personally doesn't matter.
I most definitely feel that the government has no business getting involved in this issue, i.e. a federal ban on or funding of abortion. If that's the choice I'm given, I say that's a false choice. There are other ways.

Truth is that you are not being forthright about your principles. You speak as if you were a "closet anti-choicer."

[Valley Oak]

You speak in riddles. Your "other ways" sound a lot like giving the baby up for adoption (after the mother carried the unwanted parasite for 9 fucking months).

Fact is that we live in a country with laws and people like you and I pass those laws. If you want to play the game of "I won't make that decisions for anyone else" then go right ahead but you sound like Peter Pan becuase you refuse to deal with reality. The law is the law and the law is very, very real, whether you like it or not.

My position is clear:
A woman has a right to choose and it should be funded, guaranteed, and protected by the government, especially for poor women who cannot afford an abortion!

Edward

Truth is I cannot and will not decide for someone else that abortion is right or wrong. What I think about it personally doesn't matter.
I most definitely feel that the government has no business getting involved in this issue, i.e. a federal ban on or funding of abortion. If that's the choice I'm given, I say that's a false choice. There are other ways.

[ThePhiant]

Well OD, roble still considers you a parasite
he hasn't called your mother a whore yet, but who knows.............
what other choices do you have a mind?

Truth is I cannot and will not decide for someone else that abortion is right or wrong. What I think about it personally doesn't matter.
I most definitely feel that the government has no business getting involved in this issue, i.e. a federal ban on or funding of abortion. If that's the choice I'm given, I say that's a false choice. There are other ways.

[ThePhiant]

you are contradicting yourself.
a country has laws, yes
but we don't have rights outside those laws
only as a result of those laws
so don't forget people change, laws change

You speak in riddles. Your "other ways" sound a lot like giving the baby up for adoption (after the mother carried the unwanted parasite for 9 fucking months).

Fact is that we live in a country with laws and people like you and I pass those laws. If you want to play the game of "I won't make that decisions for anyone else" then go right ahead but you sound like Peter Pan becuase you refuse to deal with reality. The law is the law and the law is very, very real, whether you like it or not.

My position is clear:
A woman has a right to choose and it should be funded, guaranteed, and protected by the government, especially for poor women who cannot afford an abortion!

Edward

[Valley Oak]

I'm not clear on the "contradiction" you say you have observed. If you care to, please elaborate.

I will try to give some response to what you said. OD is wimping out on giving a straightforward and honest reply. He is against abortion but is afraid to say so. Anyone who appreciates the fact that any female has a fundamental right to an abortion does not beat around the bush the way he does. But at the same time he doesn't have the courage to stand up and say out loud that he is against abortion, like most anti-choice people do.

I apologize if I have indeed called him a "parasite." That's are strong word. I was trying to get a point across when I used the metaphor of a parasite and he took it personally because apparently, if I remember OD's message correctly (and maybe I don't) he said that he was unplanned.

It was perhaps this that he was referring to but that seems like a quibble to me. I might have to go back and edit that original message of mine, the one that OD responded to.

Indeed, OD's mother, it seems at least, made the decision to keep the child once she learned that she had become pregnant. But the important point here is that OD's mom (apparently) had no desire to try to abort the child. But we would need OD's confirmation on this to be sure (if he knows it and is willing to be honest about it).

No, Phiant, I will not call OD's mother a whore.

Edward

you are contradicting yourself.
a country has laws, yes
but we don't have rights outside those laws
only as a result of those laws
so don't forget people change, laws change

[OrchardDweller]

You speak in riddles. Your "other ways" sound a lot like giving the baby up for adoption (after the mother carried the unwanted parasite for 9 fucking months).

Well, that's one option. Another would be prevention through education and birth control. Still another would be for people who strongly feel that abortion should be funded, to organize, and start a private fund, maybe together with pro-abortion doctors, to provide abortions for free or at a reduced cost for those who otherwise couldn't afford it. This way, those who believe abortions should be funded can fund it themselves, and the people who are opposed to abortion are not forced to fund it with their tax dollar.

Leave the out the middleman (the govt) - it's not cost effective, they are inefficient, and they are corrupt.

Fact is that we live in a country with laws and people like you and I pass those laws. If you want to play the game of "I won't make that decisions for anyone else" then go right ahead but you sound like Peter Pan becuase you refuse to deal with reality. The law is the law and the law is very, very real, whether you like it or not.

I am aware of laws, Edward. That does not mean I agree with all laws or that all laws are necessary. I believe that abortion is a personal issue, not an issue for the federal government. I believe an all-encompassing ruling such as Roe v. Wade is dangerous, considering it could be overturned. Then where will the people who want to have an abortion be? It should be a decision between the individual and her doctor, without involvement from the government.

My position is clear:
A woman has a right to choose and it should be funded, guaranteed, and protected by the government, especially for poor women who cannot afford an abortion!

I believe that my position is clear as well: abortion is a personal issue, not an issue for the federal government. I do not believe that it should be funded by the government because "funded by the goverment" actually means funded by American tax payers, a great number of whom are against abortion.

By the way, where are they going to get this money for the government to fund abortions? Are you aware that we have a 9 trillion dollar debt, with 70 trillion due in entitlements? Are you aware that we are currently borrowing 2.5 billion dollars a day from the Chinese and Japanese, just to fund our current bloated government and their endeavors? Our economy and currency are on the verge of collapse. Food and energy costs are sky rocketing, and one out of ten in Sonoma County aren't able to pay their mortgage anymore. I think people who believe that the government can just keep printing money and taxing people are the Peter Pan's who don't deal with reality.

[AnnaLisaW]

It is possible to be Pro-Choice and Anti-Abortion.
A woman can CHOOSE not to have an abortion but still allow another the RIGHT to make her own choice.

As far as paying for it goes, I don't have a problem with my taxes going to end unwanted pregnancies that would end up on public assistance for the next 18 years (or longer if the child is not healthy and well-raised.) HMO's and insurance companies would rather pay for an abortion than a pregnancy so only the uninsured use public funds for abortions.

[ThePhiant]

I'm not clear on the "contradiction" you say you have observed. If you care to, please elaborate.

the instant you are born, you fall under the laws of the US constitution.
you have no rights outside of this
it is your obligation to know all the laws
ignorance is no defense

in fact the president claims you don't even have rights under the constitution unless he approves it.

I will try to give some response to what you said. OD is wimping out on giving a straightforward and honest reply. He is against abortion but is afraid to say so. Anyone who appreciates the fact that any female has a fundamental right to an abortion does not beat around the bush the way he does. But at the same time he doesn't have the courage to stand up and say out loud that he is against abortion, like most anti-choice people do.

OD gave a very nuanced opinion, which you are unfortunately not able to hear because you are so blinded by your own righteousness

I apologize if I have indeed called him a "parasite." That's are strong word. I was trying to get a point across when I used the metaphor of a parasite and he took it personally because apparently, if I remember OD's message correctly (and maybe I don't) he said that he was unplanned.

do you think anybody who was born ASKED to be born????

It was perhaps this that he was referring to but that seems like a quibble to me. I might have to go back and edit that original message of mine, the one that OD responded to.

A Quibble????????????
you are calling everybody born that wasn't planned a Quibble????????
if you want to be antagonistic that is OK, but just own it!!!

Indeed, OD's mother, it seems at least, made the decision to keep the child once she learned that she had become pregnant. But the important point here is that OD's mom (apparently) had no desire to try to abort the child. But we would need OD's confirmation on this to be sure (if he knows it and is willing to be honest about it)

did she want to have an abortion????
was OD wanted after the fact????
does everyone have to consider abortion???/

No, Phiant, I will not call OD's mother a whore.

well, maybe you should call her and apologize in person.

[alanora]

I find myself wondering about how/if being unplanned or unwanted or the product of coercion or other such emotional environments at the time of conception and in utero alter the emotional and/or physical life of the subsequent person. Must be at least a few theses floating around......it seems like a good place to gather needed information for an informed opinion, not to seem preferential to the cerebral or anything as emotional reaction is also valid, just harder for me to corral into coherence. What is it like to grow up knowing you are the product of rape, having an angry instead of loving conception. Or that your mother tried to end your life but failed. These must have an impact on the kid/person to be eh, even if it is in the form the formative relationship takes. Then to decide whether these permutations of life are to be "allowed" and by whom is more story yet. How is one impacted if the information is witheld? Still in effect? ta dah....more questions and no answers. It is a woman's choice to be sure.......... Happy sunday show all you waccolanders

the instant you are born, you fall under the laws of the US constitution.
you have no rights outside of this
it is your obligation to know all the laws
ignorance is no defense

in fact the president claims you don't even have rights under the constitution unless he approves it.
OD gave a very nuanced opinion, which you are unfortunately not able to hear because you are so blinded by your own righteousness

do you think anybody who was born ASKED to be born????

A Quibble????????????
you are calling everybody born that wasn't planned a Quibble????????
if you want to be antagonistic that is OK, but just own it!!!

did she want to have an abortion????
was OD wanted after the fact????
does everyone have to consider abortion???/

well, maybe you should call her and apologize in person.

[Neshamah]

Abortion is generally wrong. The killing of any living thing, whether human or animal is murder unless that killing is justified. I think killing chickens for food is justified, but the justification threshold for killing humans is much higher, (though not as high for a fetus as it is for an infant or adult.)

My position is both pro-choice and pro-life. (Of course, I don't know any pro-choicers, not even Peter Singer, who would consider themselves anti-life or pro-death, so I admit the terms are kind of silly.)

My difference with the mainstream pro-choice position is that I think the choice comes a little earlier in the process. If a man or woman freely chooses to have sex, then they both should be prepared for the possibility of a pregnancy.

Having said all that, I am still saying "Yes" on the poll because abortion is not something that the federal or state governments should legislate.

If a woman's choice is pre-empted by rape, it is most unlikely that the rapist will be caught and convicted during the first trimester. Furthermore, consider a man who has consexual sex with a woman on the understanding that he will be there for her if she gets pregnant, and then that man abandons her. Morally, there is no significant difference between that and rape. However, there is no legal recourse. In any case, the woman is still justified in killing the fetus.

There are other circumstances that justify some abortions. If the government restricts abortion at all, it risks the greater evil of forcing rape victims to raise the children of rapists, or go through the emotional agony of bearing a child only to give it up for adoption.

That was a little rushed; I know I will have to come back and defend my positions. : )


~ Neshamah

[AnnaLisaW]

The comment was made that "the child is not the offender."

It does not become a "child" until it is born. Before that point, it is a fetus. Ascribing a soul to the fetus is a crutial point in the anti-abortion argument. To say a fetus has a soul, implies that it is a sentient being. At what point the fetus becomes a sentient being is also debatable. If you believe that the spirit, or "soul" enters the body at conception, then in the case of non-consentual sex, it too, is the offender. It is willing to enter a unwelcoming host in order to have life perhaps in the same way as a starving man will break into my home for a loaf of bread. Killing is killing. If you threaten my life or the health and safety of my family, do I have the right to kill you?
Personally, I believe that my children's spirits were present at conception and that abortion is a form of murder. I still firmly believe that a woman should have the right to decide for herself if she will have an abortion. The consequences are between her and her God.

Side note: I was appalled to learn that some doctors were taken into court for refusing to perform abortions. I believe that denies the doctor's freedom of religion. An abortion is a simple procedure and doctors are well paid for it. As long as abortion is legal, there will be plenty of doctors willing to perform the service for a fee.

[Rucira]

I SAY NO. so your not all unanimous. and im not christian neither. the unblessed, r ucira

[Rucira]

Killing is fine so long as ur a politician or hungrey. Therefore those of us who are not politicians should EAT THEIR UNBORN CHILDREN after aborting them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! muahahaaaaaaaaaaa
FIGHT HUNGER. EAT UNBORN LITTLE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Abortion is generally wrong. The killing of any living thing, whether human or animal is murder unless that killing is justified. I think killing chickens for food is justified, but the justification threshold for killing humans is much higher, (though not as high for a fetus as it is for an infant or adult.)

My position is both pro-choice and pro-life. (Of course, I don't know any pro-choicers, not even Peter Singer, who would consider themselves anti-life or pro-death, so I admit the terms are kind of silly.)

My difference with the mainstream pro-choice position is that I think the choice comes a little earlier in the process. If a man or woman freely chooses to have sex, then they both should be prepared for the possibility of a pregnancy.

Having said all that, I am still saying "Yes" on the poll because abortion is not something that the federal or state governments should legislate.

If a woman's choice is pre-empted by rape, it is most unlikely that the rapist will be caught and convicted during the first trimester. Furthermore, consider a man who has consexual sex with a woman on the understanding that he will be there for her if she gets pregnant, and then that man abandons her. Morally, there is no significant difference between that and rape. However, there is no legal recourse. In any case, the woman is still justified in killing the fetus.

There are other circumstances that justify some abortions. If the government restricts abortion at all, it risks the greater evil of forcing rape victims to raise the children of rapists, or go through the emotional agony of bearing a child only to give it up for adoption.

That was a little rushed; I know I will have to come back and defend my positions. : )


~ Neshamah

[Rucira]

the unborn are just parasites right? heh heh? they cant survive without that blood cord from their navel to the innards of the most unfortanate host female. we should all avoid unwanted pregnancies by sewing our vaginas shut ! get the rapists rubber phony vaginas or train them to f... chunks of liver to avoid this sort of consequence.

the instant you are born, you fall under the laws of the US constitution.
you have no rights outside of this
it is your obligation to know all the laws
ignorance is no defense

in fact the president claims you don't even have rights under the constitution unless he approves it.
OD gave a very nuanced opinion, which you are unfortunately not able to hear because you are so blinded by your own righteousness

do you think anybody who was born ASKED to be born????

A Quibble????????????
you are calling everybody born that wasn't planned a Quibble????????
if you want to be antagonistic that is OK, but just own it!!!

did she want to have an abortion????
was OD wanted after the fact????
does everyone have to consider abortion???/

well, maybe you should call her and apologize in person.

[decterlove]

Here's the real issue on abortion to me and I do not offer it lightly. I've never shared it publicly before but I think the Wacco readers can handle it whether or not anyone even remotely agrees with my articulation.

First there are too many. All efforts should be made to reduce their numbers. This is similar...please don't take offense at the analogy...to the number of dogs and cats that are put down in this country. In an industrial society we are able to kill on an industrial scale. Nuff said.

The real central issue to me deeply reflects my belief in reincarnation and an afterworld. The question to be asked is does the fetus suffer a great deal in its' rejected attempt at incarnation? Does the soul experience an emotional rejection from the soul that has perhaps "agreed" to birth it and does the soul attempting incarnation experience an uncomfortable limbo condition after the abortion. I have no idea what the answer is to these two questions.

I hope my conceptual framework especially does not offend or upset anyone that has actually had an abortion. I do believe ultimately in a woman's right to choose and that she should have access to the best medical care she needs.

An interesting side note to the above ideas is it is my understanding that Japanese Catholics who are influenced by Shintoism also incorporate the concept of reincarnation into their Catholicism and are much less bothered by abortion than Christians in other cultures.

And many even in this culture choose to practice some sort of spiritual ritual to regain balance for the mother and perhaps address the spiritual condition of the fetus as well. It's just not talked about that much.

It's my belief that this unspoken and perhaps in many people's minds intellectually illegitimate concern, is ultimately at the heart of the issue and will only be resolved when enough people become capable of navigating the psychic realms and observing souls after they have been aborted.

[Willie Lumplump]

The killing of any living thing, whether human or animal is murder unless that killing is justified.

I think this moral stance would come unravelled if you really thought it through. First, "any living thing" takes in a lot of territory, and humans and other animals are only part of that territory. Second, it places animals such as tapeworms and roly-poly bugs on the same level with human beings. And third, it sets up a situation where anyone who kills an animal could legitimately be accused of murder since there will always be some people who believe that the killing was unjustified. I'm sure it would be possible to come up with a long list of difficulties.

[Willie Lumplump]

Why should abortions be paid for publicly? You mean with taxpayers' dollars? Do you think it's fair to make others, who might feel deeply that abortion is wrong, pay for someone else's abortion?

Many people feel deeply that it is wrong for the Federal government to levy an income tax. Should these people not be required to pay their taxes? Many other people (like me) feel deeply that it is wrong to levy regressive taxes such as sales taxes. Should I therefore be excused from paying such taxes?

[Sonomamark]

Here we go again, OrchardDweller. You libertarians just don't get this thing about the "greater good", do you? It's all about you.

The harm to our society in having unwanted, neglected, abused children is almost incomprehensibly high. And the fact is that many such children aren't the right color to find adoption with the typical upper-middle-class white adopting family--or they're not given up for adoption, and instead are raised in squalor and abuse. So they grow up damaged, and they do damage. Through self-abuse and dependence on public services, through crime. It's not their fault, but they become a problem we all have to deal with. We pay in social services, medical services, policing, courts and prisons.

Now, your answer would probably be, well, shut down all the social programs and let them fend for themselves. And when one of them, starving or freaked on meth, put a shiv through your throat to steal your wallet and buy a hamburger, my social analysis would be that at some level, justice had been served. Because we're all in this together. You don't have to LIKE it, but you have a responsibility to everyone else in this society. Even the ones you don't like, don't know, and don't care about. That's why it is perfectly right that you be taxed and regulated. Because there is a COMMON good that must be balanced against your PERSONAL good.

At this stage in human history, less people is just good, period. I go farther than thinking people should be able to end unwanted pregnancies: I think they should be required to get a license--meaning, having to go through parenting classes and demonstrate capacity to raise children--in order to be ALLOWED to have a child. Otherwise, mandatory abortion.

I'm sure people will howl, but we are well past the point where we can tell ourselves comforting fairy tales about how "each child is a miracle". We're not miracles: we're animals. We eat, excrete, and consume resources like mad, especially here in the soft, pampered and entitled industrialized world. And every last one of us will drown in our own waste, if we don't start reproducing and consuming less, and soon.

It's time we stopped grasping at straws like "cosmic destinies" and really confront our nature as a species of large mammal on this planet. Things go extinct all the time. We can, too. Nothing in the Universe will even notice if we do. Whether or not we do is up to us.


SM

Why should abortions be paid for publicly? You mean with taxpayers' dollars? Do you think it's fair to make others, who might feel deeply that abortion is wrong, pay for someone else's abortion?

How is a woman getting pregnant from having sex an "accident" that should be "eliminated" like a "parasite". You think maybe that's what nature intended; you have sex and then sometimes you get pregnant!

Technically some would think abortion to be murder, considering that a foetus has legal right, yes.
Morally, well, that would depend entirely on one's morals..

Respectfully,
The parasite that got away

[Rucira]

how about if we abort sonomamark and his future offspring.

[Rucira]

women wanting abortion should be made to sign a promise that the dead childs rotting flesh be sold to cosmetics companies to be ground up to prevent wrinkles for postmenopausal women.

[Willie Lumplump]

The question to be asked is does the fetus suffer a great deal in its' rejected attempt at incarnation?

It's perhaps symptomatic of the times that often I can't distinguish between somebody who's putting me on and somebody who's attempting to be serious. In this case I must admit that I'm stumped.