I'm a guy, and I've understood the dangers involved in making abortions illegal for a long time. People across the world have been trying to create abortions for at least a 1000 years. While abortions might not a good solution, in my mind the tragedies created by not allowing them could be far worse. I would be more in favor of allowing limited abortions. Something along the lines, that after a woman's 3rd abortion, her tubes are tied or something. If the woman is that reckless, she gives up her rights to create a child. I'm sure there are probably valid arguements against this line of thought, but it does seem to be the best compromise I can think of for both sides of the issue.
Now if you really wanted to start a private flame thread, what about a male's say in the issue? *ducks and hides*
Actually surprisingly enough I've always been really pro life and in reading what you have to say I seem to understand a little bit better, my cousin is 15 and has a healthy and happy 6 month old boy, granted the babies father walked out 3 months into the pregnancy (hard to call him a father he's also 15) but she felt she had no other choice. I'm glad she went ahead and had him but I guess I just wish kids and younger teens would think more about their actions. If you think your old enough to lay down and have sex, then you should also understand you can get pregnant and the chance is very real so think twice if your not careful about it...
But no I actually like your point of view and wouldn't flame it. :)
I feel like I should add my liberal two cents here: Liberals hate abortion, too. I grew up in Oklahoma, which has the highest teen pregnancy rate of any state, and I happened to grow up in Beckham county, which has the highest teen pregnancy rate in Oklahoma. That doesn't necessarily mean it's the worst in the whole country, but... it's pretty horrible. We're talking 11- and 12-year-olds (yes, plural) with kids. Anyway, sex is a completely taboo subject in Beckham county. It has been proposed several times to put condoms in school bathrooms, or have free condoms available somewhere or offer sex education classes or *something,* *anything* to help curb the problem, but some people are so conservative that they just won't have it.
I am assuming you are conservative because you are pro-life (you can slap me if you want). I just wanted you to know that liberals hate abortion, too. But most of us see it as a small tragedy that will prevent thousands of tragies down the road.
The problem being, though, that even though teenagers THINK they are old enough to have sex, if they aren't also planning ahead for these issues they aren't. Plain and simple. But how to get across to them? They think they're invincible... (and I say this with full knowledge of how I was at that age!)
Yeah I thought I was invincible to, then after my accident which took 12 days on life support about a month in a hospital bed and a year of rehab made me think a little different ;). Almost afraid for my son to hit that age...
thats the problem i have with the whole abortion issue... they dont ever seem to ask the father. We have 50% of our DNA invested in that thing. Why dont we get a say? Personally im Pro-choice much like the man above. If you believe in pro-choice then you are ok wiht limited abortion rights. Pro-life is the absolute, no abortions. Abortion is a good thing for many reasons. However, when ever i give advice to a friend who thinks they are in this situation my first piece of Advice is Adoption. There are so many people in the world who cant have children. If you dont wish to have the kid fine get the abortion but at least consider the option first then make an informed decsion.
"that after a woman's 3rd abortion, her tubes are tied or something. If the woman is that reckless, she gives up her rights to create a child."
i highly disagree with this no women should ever give up her rights to make a child unless it is done willingly. There really is no way of comprimising. When you have people that are pro-life and wish to take away peoples right to choose. Its unconstitutional.
"If you think your old enough to lay down and have sex, then you should also understand you can get pregnant and the chance is very real so think twice if your not careful about it..."
Education is the problem... so is stupidity and inmaturity.
Under this proposal, in a sense, she HAS chosen to give up her rights voluntarily. It's not 3rd preganacy, its third time choosing abortion. If you grew up as a woman, knowing its 3 strikes and no more, the 3rd decision to have an abortion is just that, have the kid or voluntarily give up ever having a kid. Note, I'm not requiring she keep the kid (adoption), just if you have 3 abortions, you are either highly reckless, or have no intentions of bringing a child to term. Incidentally, a woman who undergoes this, could still adopt a child later. Heck, I choose 3 due to the fact that human error and unwilling pregnancies do occur. But at the same time, I just feel that unlimited abortions encourages potentially reckless behavior. Either way, the woman still has a choice, just the choice has more far reaching personal consequences.
Facetiously: Possession is 9/10th of law, and you got nothing.
Honestly: You don't have to have the baby growing in you. Preganacy affects our entire bodies and can be really dangerous. If I were to get pregnant right now, I would likely choose abortion because I can't take being pregnant at this time (hence the precautions I do take to make sure that dosn't happen).
I think there are lots of cases where the women either discuss this with the father involved and they agree, or the father says "Whatever. I don't want anything to do with it." I have an aquantance right now who has decided to keep the baby, and the father has been constantly calling and begging her to have an abortion.
Fuck you and your 9/10th. It should always be discussed with the father i know of cases where it is not. Personally if the discussion happens and the father wishes for abortion or adoption and the mother refuses. Then i dont feel it is right to make the father pay for the kid.
Wikipedia and dictionary.com are my friends... but yeah i know Tongue and cheek. However i have actually seen that arguement before. twas more of a knee jerk reaction.
Do you even know what "facetiously" means? Since you've sunken to swearing and can't use punctuation at all, I'll assume no. It's a quick, flip answer that covers the basic points, but, since I expanded on it in the "Honestly" section, was just an intro.
In the end, it's the woman's choice. I agree with you that there should be some method in which men can opt out and really, completely give up thier parental rights. But in the end, it's the woman's life that's affected more.
Next time, try actual debate instead of pulling out the profanity.
Yeah, but it's my journal, and I'd appreciate it if you acted civil towards my friends. I know it's a touchy issue but you're the only one flying off the handle here.
I think that the fact that the male's say in the issue is also dependent upon individuals' beliefs on when life starts means that it's extremely important to discuss with someone you're in a relationship what your thoughts concerning abortion are, so that you know where each other stands if the situation arises.
Definately. I was mostly trolling when I brought up the issue regarding male rights. In a perfectly fair world, the male would have some say. But the world is not fair, and as Rufinia commented, the woman is the one doing all the work. So to balance that, would almost have to compensate the lady in some manner. That's just something I don't want to explore. How do you place a value on the act of creating a child?(Get yer babies $500 each, 2 for $750!!) More importantly, I don't think this particular option is one society should be exploring. So having shot down the only potentially realistic option I can think of, I really don't have any idea how to balance that issue.
If you haven't read Freakonomics, you should. There is a huge chapter dedicated to the benefits of abortion. About 20 years after Roe v. Wade, crime plunged dramatically. I mean, seriously, dramatically. People naturally exposed to crime weren't being born anymore, and there was less stress on welfare, and all this other stuff. Anyway, the book offers the economical perspective on things, and its perspective on abortion is pretty fascinating. It also talks about sumo wrestling, parenting, and crack gangs. It's pretty cool.
I can't say I'm the most informed bleeding-heart liberal, and I am definitely opposed to neo-cons much more on principle than with regard to the specifics of platforms or sponsored legislation. So I wonder if any "family valued" commenters out there in the inter-web who might read this could tell me - while conservative talking heads, self-proclaimed "pro-lifers", in state or federal office or otherwise, nearly bubble over with excitement at the thought of getting Roe v. Wade overturned by some new Supreme Court ruling... are they giving any thought ahead of time to what kinds of assistance that state and local governments will need to deal with the resultant post-Roe-v-Wade children who would otherwise have been aborted as fetuses? The resultant increase in children, most often, of young, poor, single mothers, living in poor communities, children who would be more prone than any others to fall through the system's already gaping cracks, children who would more often than not turn into burdens of the state as children in foster care, addicts, or criminals? What would "pro-lifers" do for those lives then, once they survived the womb and got handed the short end of the stick? Would they just be another problem that "the community" and its "faith-based organizations" are supposed to burden themselves with?
In the reading I was doing that led to the above-linked article, I saw an interesting comment that most "right to life"rs are actually "right to birth"ers - they'll help you get born, but after that, you're on your own as far as living goes.
::nods sagely:: Yup. There certainly aren't many people worried about changing that perception. Then again, the people who support them either don't give a shit or can't see the forest for the trees - well, maybe they just refuse to see the trees to begin with... And when it comes to the people who don't support neo-conservatism - well, they're just traitorous pinko liberals who are conspiring with the terrorists, so who cares about what they think?
... Bleeding-hearts and neo-cons spend an awful lot of time talking right past each other, don't we?
Wish I felt like these selfish, manipulative, imperious former-used-car-salesman bastards deserved some kind of compromise from us, 'cause that would make the resolution of our differences a lot easier.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ninetydegrees
no subject
on 27 Jan 2006 19:36 (UTC)Now if you really wanted to start a private flame thread, what about a male's say in the issue? *ducks and hides*
no subject
on 27 Jan 2006 19:52 (UTC)But no I actually like your point of view and wouldn't flame it. :)
no subject
on 28 Jan 2006 01:32 (UTC)I am assuming you are conservative because you are pro-life (you can slap me if you want). I just wanted you to know that liberals hate abortion, too. But most of us see it as a small tragedy that will prevent thousands of tragies down the road.
no subject
on 30 Jan 2006 02:38 (UTC)no subject
on 30 Jan 2006 11:20 (UTC)no subject
on 27 Jan 2006 20:30 (UTC)"that after a woman's 3rd abortion, her tubes are tied or something. If the woman is that reckless, she gives up her rights to create a child."
i highly disagree with this no women should ever give up her rights to make a child unless it is done willingly. There really is no way of comprimising. When you have people that are pro-life and wish to take away peoples right to choose. Its unconstitutional.
"If you think your old enough to lay down and have sex, then you should also understand you can get pregnant and the chance is very real so think twice if your not careful about it..."
Education is the problem... so is stupidity and inmaturity.
no subject
on 27 Jan 2006 20:44 (UTC)no subject
on 27 Jan 2006 20:51 (UTC)Honestly: You don't have to have the baby growing in you. Preganacy affects our entire bodies and can be really dangerous. If I were to get pregnant right now, I would likely choose abortion because I can't take being pregnant at this time (hence the precautions I do take to make sure that dosn't happen).
I think there are lots of cases where the women either discuss this with the father involved and they agree, or the father says "Whatever. I don't want anything to do with it." I have an aquantance right now who has decided to keep the baby, and the father has been constantly calling and begging her to have an abortion.
no subject
on 27 Jan 2006 22:15 (UTC)no subject
on 27 Jan 2006 23:28 (UTC)no subject
on 28 Jan 2006 21:47 (UTC)no subject
on 28 Jan 2006 01:05 (UTC)In the end, it's the woman's choice. I agree with you that there should be some method in which men can opt out and really, completely give up thier parental rights. But in the end, it's the woman's life that's affected more.
Next time, try actual debate instead of pulling out the profanity.
no subject
on 28 Jan 2006 21:49 (UTC)no subject
on 30 Jan 2006 02:47 (UTC)no subject
on 28 Jan 2006 14:54 (UTC)no subject
on 30 Jan 2006 02:41 (UTC)no subject
on 30 Jan 2006 06:29 (UTC)no subject
on 30 Jan 2006 02:36 (UTC)no subject
on 30 Jan 2006 13:32 (UTC)no subject
on 28 Jan 2006 01:37 (UTC)no subject
on 30 Jan 2006 02:44 (UTC)no subject
on 28 Jan 2006 03:28 (UTC)re: What would "pro-lifers" do for those lives then
on 28 Jan 2006 14:55 (UTC)no subject
on 30 Jan 2006 02:46 (UTC)no subject
on 30 Jan 2006 03:12 (UTC)no subject
on 30 Jan 2006 03:17 (UTC)... Bleeding-hearts and neo-cons spend an awful lot of time talking right past each other, don't we?
Wish I felt like these selfish, manipulative, imperious former-used-car-salesman bastards deserved some kind of compromise from us, 'cause that would make the resolution of our differences a lot easier.
no subject
on 30 Jan 2006 03:28 (UTC)