| Underground abortion |
[14 Jul 2008|09:11am] |
| [ |
mood |
| |
 contemplative |
] |
The anti-abortion group Comment on Reproductive Ethics told the BBC it was taking abortion "into the shadows".
"It" was the purchasing of pills online for the purpose of having an abortion at home.
Apparently, some of the women who have made such a purchase have gone on to require further treatment:
However, a study published in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology found that 11% of 400 customers went on to need a surgical procedure -- either because the drugs had not completed the abortion or because of excessive bleeding, the BBC reported.
The fact that many of the women buying these pills online are from countries that restrict abortion is what made me take notice.
It would appear that both sides agree that keeping abortion from going "into the shadows" would be a good thing.
Do you think this is accurate? Do you think making abortion illegal would push it "into the shadows"?
It sounds like a given, as this seems to occur with most acts that are declared illegal, but then that would also seem to indicate that making abortion illegal is not the way to combat it effectively.
|
|
| How would you respond/what would be your terms? |
[19 Jun 2008|03:32pm] |
| [ |
mood |
| |
 curious |
] |
This question isn't specified to just one side of the pro-life/pro-choice fence, because neither are exempt from having an unexpected pregnancy.
After doing some work/research with women who have fertility difficulties (whether they have problems conceiving or problems carrying to term) I know that there are women who, with their partners, are ready to adopt in any case or solution.
So - say you've got an unwanted pregnancy and you're thinking about an abortion - but one of these women are a friend of yours. She says that she'll adopt the child under any terms.
Would you go through with the abortion or would you agree to work with her? If so - what are your terms (paying costs, visitation, whatever your heart desires)? Would a family willing to pay the medical bills be enough for you to chose to carry on the pregnancy to term?
Men, what would be your perspective if your girlfriend or wife decided to do this instead of an abortion?
|
|
| Framing the Debate |
[16 May 2008|01:02am] |
One of the rules in the ![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif) abortiondebate community centers around a contentious issue - naming. As you all know (or SHOULD) know, it's a violation of community rules to refer to one "side" or the other by anything other than their "chosen" name. There are prolifers and there are prochoicers. There are no anti-choicers, no pro-aborts, no anti-lifers, no pro-deathers, unless you're new here or aiming for moderation action against you (suicide by moderator? let's go out with a bang!).
SO!
FOR DEBATE: How much do you think the naming of each group affects the debate? How does it affect how you view people you are debating with - in person or online - if they choose to use the accepted, "neutral" names, or the more polemic alternatives? How do the names used affect your perception of articles written about sexual politics/the abortion debate? Do they affect your perception at all?
|
|
| Abortion-related publicity stunts: help or harm? |
[27 Apr 2008|05:08pm] |
| [ |
mood |
| |
 annoyed |
] |
An Idaho strawberry farmer vying for Larry Craig's senate seat legally changed his name to "Pro Life."
According to the article, he changed his name in order to get through a loophole in Idaho law that prohibits slogans from appearing with a candidate's name on a ballot.
Also according to the article, the local right-to-life is not particularly supportive of this, because they think it's just going to confuse voters, and might even lead them to select two candidates for Senate (because they think they are voting for a candidate and then voting "pro-life"), which would invalidate their votes.
My question is - and this is directed to everyone, pro-life and pro-choice - do you think that stunts like this have a positive or negative effect on the movement? Does it call needed attention to an inflammatory issue, or does it turn the issue into a laughingstock?
I think the whole idea is pretty silly, honestly, and I would feel the same way if he'd changed his name to "Pro Choice." But what does everyone else think?
|
|
|
[17 Apr 2008|12:39pm] |
Abortion as an art project
Beginning next Tuesday, Shvarts will be displaying her senior art project, a documentation of a nine-month process during which she artificially inseminated herself "as often as possible" while periodically taking abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriages. Her exhibition will feature video recordings of these forced miscarriages as well as preserved collections of the blood from the process.
The goal in creating the art exhibition, Shvarts said, was to spark conversation and debate on the relationship between art and the human body. But her project has already provoked more than just debate, inciting, for instance, outcry at a forum for fellow senior art majors held last week. And when told about Shvarts' project, students on both ends of the abortion debate have expressed shock . saying the project does everything from violate moral code to trivialize abortion.
What do you think of this project? Is there some value to it? Does it hurt the pro-choice movement? Bolster the idea that some pro life groups spread that women who abort do so casually and frequently? Should there be laws in place to stop an experiment like this one?
ETA: It was a hoax.
|
|
| unique DNA = a separate human being? |
[11 Apr 2008|09:41pm] |
Lydia Fairchild is a chimera -- most of her body has one set of DNA, but her reproductive organs and other parts have a completely different set of DNA. Scientists believe this happens when two eggs are fertilized, and then those two embryos fuse, creating one embryo and eventually one baby with two sets of DNA.
Is this woman one human being or two? Are her reproductive organs a separate human being who deserves equal rights? Should she ever want a hysterectomy, should she be allowed to have it; or would that be murder? Should it be illegal for her to have an abortion because her uterus has its own unique DNA?
|
|
| Responsibility sans abortion? |
[03 Apr 2008|09:13pm] |
If there were ever a time where abortion had simply never existed (say far far far in the future in some utopia or let's just imagine,) might giving a child up for adoption be viewed as an irresponsible measure?
I'm thinking in terms of the way some people may view abortion as being just "killing off the problem" or running away from responsibility. Might adoption be looked at as simply giving your problem to someone else to handle, and not handling it like a real, responsible adult, if abortion had somehow never existed?
|
|
|
[10 Mar 2008|11:33am] |
Consider the following: This couple want a deaf child. Should we try to stop them?
For those what don't want to read the whole thing, here is the pertinent bit:
( pertinent bit )
So, debaters, my question to you is this: Should there be legislation that automatically discards embryos with genetic "abnormalities" when a) these people are legally seen as equal in the eyes of the law and b) there are people who are seeking children and don't care one way or t'other what "abnormalities" may be present or are actually actively seeking a child with an "abnormality"?
Please disregard whether this legislation is going on in your own country or not. We're speaking in general here.
|
|
| Right to Life? |
[20 Feb 2008|10:53am] |
Recently during debate on another website, an opponent said
"I think many people would agree with the notion that every human deserves the right to life (PL include z/e/fs) except those who are guilty of murder. I believe that once you murder another, which is the most heinous and grave of all crimes, your right-to-life should not necessarily be protected."
I find this interesting, since from what I have gathered from speaking to many of the pro-lifers on this community, the right-to-life is intrinsic and inviolable.
Prolifers: if you believe in this inheret or God- or Universe-given right to life, what would you say to another pro-lifer who only recognizes the right-to-life of certain humans?
Or, if the right to life CAN be "revoked" for certain humans, is it really an intrinsic right at all, or a privilege which we as a society recognize for [most] individuals?
|
|
| Standard for Personhood |
[17 Feb 2008|09:45pm] |
(This is my first post in this community so my apologies if this topic has been discussed before. If it has please respond with a link to the post.)
Abortion proponents often make the claim that a fetus is not a person. The main reason is that the fetus lacks the ability to carry out some function that a recognized person does. The fetus can't survive on its own, communicate, reason, feel or exercise any rights they might have.
The problem with this functional argument is that the functional deficiencies of the baby in the womb also exist for the baby outside of the womb. A newborn cannot survive on its own, communicate (intelligently), it cannot reason (as we understand it) nor are its senses fully developed. Yet most pro-choice people would agree that a newborn has the same right to live as any other person. Not only that, not all "persons" have all of these functions (i.e. they are handicapped or infirm.) Yet we don't consider them as less of a person. Even perfectly healthy persons have moments where these functions aren't working (sleep, unconsciousness, temporary insanity, substance-induced stupors). But nobody considers them non-persons or less of a person during those moments.
My question for pro-choice people is this: what defines personhood? Is it function and ability? If so, why not provide less rights to the less abled and more rights to the more abled. If personhood is defined by something else, what is it?
|
|
|
[05 Feb 2008|10:18am] |
| [ |
mood |
| |
contemplative |
] |
My sister and I were out to lunch the other day, and I asked her if she'd heard about the 40,000 plastic fetus thing yet. (Here, for anyone who hasn't seen it.) Naturally, this lead us to deeper conversation, and I was pleased to hear that although she is SDA and pro-life, she doesn't think that decision should be made for other people. She's usually the kind of person that feels her opinions are in line with Gods and therefour, everyone should agree with her.
We got into a wonderfully open minded discussion, and I enjoyed hearing how she felt about it, knowing she was listening to me mutually.
The thing that we seemed to catch on most was when it's "too late".
My stance is that a fetus is not sentient until it's brain is mature enough to think and feel. I personally belive in a soul, although I am not Christian, but I understand that many Americans do not, and constitutionally have the right to not belive in a soul. I was taking that point of debate.
My sister belives that the soul is present the moment conception happens, and thus even if the fetus can not feel pain or emotion or think, it's soul can and thus it's murder from the moment it exists.
How many of you feel either way, or another way? Why? I'd like to hear about it.
|
|
| forum life vs. real life |
[28 Jan 2008|07:08am] |
I've been thinking about discussion and arguments that I've had on forums-mostly this one. It seems when you are dicussing abortion on line, it seem so easy to slip into the "OMG, I can't believe that *expletive* said that. What a *expletive*! I knew that the other side were a bunch of *expletive* selfish/ignorant/whatever *expletive*"
And yet, in "real" life I know many people, both friends and family, who have the opposite view of me. We manage to get along (most of the time) without trying to kill each other. This might be because we usually don't sit down and hash out or argue different view points like abortion. But it just seems like there is something about the facelessness of online debating that makes it easier to slip into thinking horrible thoughts about the other person.
So my questions is, is everything you say on abortiondebate what you feel exactly? Do you think the style of discussion makes it easier for your judgement to get clouded or for you to take a position out of stubborness? Do you express you views differently in real life?
|
|
| Causes of dropping abortion rates? |
[25 Jan 2008|04:05pm] |
| [ |
mood |
| |
curious |
] |
As we all may have heard by now, according to a study by the Guttmacher Institute that is covered in this article, abortion rates in the US are the lowest they have been in 30 years. The story in question, covered by NPR, attributes this to a shrinking number of abortion providers.
However, this column by former Moral Majority official Cal Thomas attributes the drop in abortions solely to the efforts of right-to-life groups. Planned Parenthood's spokespeople cite the growing availability of birth control, particularly the morning-after pill, which is much easier to obtain now that it is over-the-counter (rather than prescription) for consumers 18 and over.
So, what do we in the community think is causing the drop? One of the above? All of the above? Something else entirely? Me, I've been saying for a long time that Plan B is close to a godsend, but I'm not going to attribute everything to one factor - so what do we think?
|
|
| political question |
[23 Jan 2008|08:46pm] |
|
Just curious, but how big of a part will abortion issues play in your vote this coming election? Are there other issues that are equally or more important to you? And finally, does everyone but me know who they are going to vote for and why?
|
|
| reasonable abortion legislation |
[01 Jan 2008|11:24am] |
Some pro-life people like to imply that they simply seek to place "reasonable" regulations on abortion, and claim that the reckless and evil pro-choice movement is against any kind of regulation of abortion whatsoever. Frankly, this is news to me.
My question for debate is:
What regulations would you consider reasonable, when it comes to abortion? (Also, are you pro-choice or pro-life?)
|
|
| Morbo is displeased! |
[13 Jan 2008|11:41pm] |
Puny humans! Morbo demands posts.
|
|
| How far is too far? |
[10 Dec 2007|11:44pm] |
Some history: A recent controversy at my school occurred. The on-campus Pro-life group posted fliers up promoting their position. In short, the fliers were propaganda, for lack of a better term, but the facts they argued were rooted in truth and, for the most part, very simple.
Many students (and faculty) were outraged by this. Numerous complaints were voiced but the one that struck me the most was the following: How far is too far? How far can you go, should you go to promote the truth? Particularly speaking, many felt that the fliers lacked "Compassion" for those who were pro-choice or for those who may have procured abortions. My stances aside, this made me wonder the above question. If this is a matter of human life, should I be cognizant to the feelings of the opposing side, remembering fully, the amount of human life lost over this issue?
So the central question, in summary:
If promoting a position in a civil manner means hurting others emotionally, are we justified--taking into account Freedom of Speech, and the obvious fact the the Truth is the Truth (regardless of who is actually "right")?
|
|
| Morality v. Legislation |
[04 Dec 2007|09:43am] |
|
The disjointing of ethical conclusions and legislation is recognized in ethical philosophy to be necessary. To say something is immoral isn't unnecessarily to say that it ought to be legislated against. With that in mind I've noticed most that argue in this debate oppose the need for women to abort, though different solutions are presented. Birth control education, availability of social programs that support pregnant women and mothers, as well as legislation have all been presented. With this in mind is there any level of agreement that abortion is at very least undesirable? If that is the case, then does that make some sort of statement about our moral reaction to the event itself? This is not suggesting legislation is or is not the solution, only that (independently of legislation) is abortion right ethically?
|
|
| Abortion rights vs. Father rights |
[01 Dec 2007|04:38am] |
A question I've been confused about recently.
If we have granted that a woman is solely responsible for deciding whether an unborn child should continue existing or not, which I think a lot of people here agree with, then how do we decide how much legal and/or moral obligation the father has to the hypothetically born child?
To clarify: Say that we have decided that the potential father has no formal or legal (or even moral) say into whether the potential mother can have an abortion or not. He can say his peace, because there is free speech, but the choice is ultimately up to the woman. Then, can we legally or even morally say that the man has responsibility towards that potential child?
|
|
chipper