|
Post by julinka on Jul 3, 2002 19:51:17 GMT -5
I haven't read through the decision very thoroughly, but to the best of my knowledge the principal it outlines is that it is an impingement on a woman's rights for the state to legislate a restriction on first (and second?) trimester abortions. I don't see that as "creating legislation".
|
|
Tay
New Member
Posts: 2
|
Post by Tay on Jul 3, 2002 23:16:44 GMT -5
I'm pro-choice.
To me, the whole thing is not about the concept of 'life.' It's about whether or not the government should be allowed to own and control a woman's body.
I didn't read through the whole thread, so I don't know what points have been made or not.
Not everyone is willing to go through nine months of pregnancy just to give the child up for adoption. That's nine months wasted. It's also a painful childbirth, just to give it away.
I don't think people should be using abortions for birth control. That is definately not what it's there for. And it's pretty painful birth control. It's not like pro-choicers are like, 'Yeah, yeah, abortions! I love them! They're so GREAT, don't you think?!' It's not that anybody *wants* to be pushed to having an abortion. The pro-choicers (or at least myself) don't *want* to see people being forced to get abortions. Nobody wants that. It's just that pro-choicers understand that it's a necessary evil. Having people get a safe, clean abortion is better than having people try to fish the fetus out with a coat hanger.
No one thinks that abortion is *ideal*. But then, for some people, giving birth isn't ideal either. You can't know everyone's situation and have a cure for it. Some people may overuse their right to abortion, but people overuse their rights to everything. People have been trying to end pregnancies since there have been pregnant people. Maybe it's not just one kind of issue. What if a mom who already has, say, five kids gets pregnant again? What if she decides that she just can't have the sixth? It'll cost too much and make everyone else bad too.
People who don't want abortions around should get out and *do* something about it. Demand 100% guaranteed birth control, get sex education everywhere. Shouldn't the abortion-wanting, baby-making people have control over their reproductive lives? I think it'd help. Taking away abortions would mean less control over it. That's not the way to go.
|
|
|
Post by Cassiopeia on Jul 3, 2002 23:50:41 GMT -5
>>I haven't read through the decision very thoroughly, but to the best of my knowledge the principal it outlines is that it is an impingement on a woman's rights for the state to legislate a restriction on first (and second?) trimester abortions. I don't see that as "creating legislation". <<
Exactly. That is exactly why I don't understand why more conservatives aren't pro-choice. They are in favor of less government, so shouldn't they want abortion to be legal?
|
|
|
Post by pettyluv on Jul 4, 2002 0:56:38 GMT -5
^^Well this is why I am in constant conflict with myself in this issue. In my morality, I cannot bring myself to support what I see as an innocent human life being taken, and part of me says that government should not allow that life to perish.
But I also oppose government intrusion in everyday life.
So, I believe that if a women wants to do what I see as a horrid action, I am not in my right to impose my morality. But under no circumstance do I want as a taxpayer to subsidize something that I see as morally outrageous. If you want to get an abortion, fine, I just don't want the government engaging in this activity.
|
|
|
Post by Cassiopeia on Jul 4, 2002 1:13:38 GMT -5
>>But under no circumstance do I want as a taxpayer to subsidize something that I see as morally outrageous. If you want to get an abortion, fine, I just don't want the government engaging in this activity. <<
Oh, I completely agree. Not that I see abortion as a morally outrageous choice. But I don't think the government should have any obligation to fund abortions. After all, the whole pro-choice movement is about wanting women to have sovereignty over their bodies and for the government to stay out of their personal business. If you don't want the government to impose laws on what you should do with your body, you sure as hell had better not expect them to pay for it. That's just so hypocritical. Every woman should have the right to have an abortion, but only if she wants to cover the cost. Abortion is a right, but it is not something that should be freely provided to every woman.
|
|
|
Post by julinka on Jul 4, 2002 16:40:45 GMT -5
But under no circumstance do I want as a taxpayer to subsidize something that I see as morally outrageous.
Agreed. Although here's an intersting conflict: what about abortions on military bases? It's my understanding that the government won't provide them, and although I don't think the government should fund them, if that's the only access to medical care that a woman has I think they're responsible for providing them (at her expense).
|
|
|
Post by Cassiopeia on Sept 20, 2002 11:05:12 GMT -5
^^^ I agree that women in the military have a right to an abortion. The government shouldn't fund it, but if the woman wants to pay for it, then why shouldn't she be able to.
I do not believe that women in prison have the right to an abortion. When you are convicted of a crime and are serving your sentence, you do not have the same rights as an ordinary citizen.
|
|
|
Post by paradoxPanda on Oct 13, 2002 18:58:26 GMT -5
>>Not everyone is willing to go through nine months of pregnancy just to give the child up for adoption. That's nine months wasted. It's also a painful childbirth, just to give it away.<<
Not just that, but not everyone can afford to take time off work for maternity leave. And if they can't afford that, it's not like they'll even be able to afford daycare.
|
|