The Abortion Thread

[jhu72]

I get what you boys are saying in that ultimately it ends with control but I don't think ONW is thinking about that part, I believe he's seeing it as a right or wrong thing in the eyes of God. He can speak for himself but that's the way I'm seeing it. The control thing is just a by product of that kind of view/thinking.

well, that could possibly have been correct, not "thinking about that part", which is why the responses point out, repeatedly, what else deserves consideration.

Even after multiple such responses, if a poster ignores that counterpoint consideration, I think it's safe to assume that's on purpose, not merely not "thinking" about it.

I'm fine with, indeed would encourage, anyone praying for guidance in their personal life, making decisions for themselves balancing all of one's considerations including imagining what God would want us to choose, but when we cross over into forcing others to conform to our own balancing, that's when we need to be very careful.

... that's the genesis of my "I am not giving benefit of doubt anymore" comment. They never seem to listen or address the other things that need to be considered. I think I have only ever received a single response to the issue of losing interest in the baby, once out of the so called "pro-life" crowd, that was from Kramer.

[kramerica.inc]

Saying people who are pro life "lose interest" in the baby once it's born is a straw man.
It's a great response, but still a straw man, and not true for all.
I'd argue that if you are pro life, you must be "pro-raising." And that continues even beyond the kid's 18th bday.

[MDlaxfan76]

Saying people who are pro life "lose interest" in the baby once it's born is a straw man.
It's a great response, but still a straw man, and not true for all.
I'd argue that if you are pro life, you must be "pro-raising." And that continues even beyond the kid's 18th bday.

I think by "must" you mean "should"...and I'd agree that it's possible to be both...but '72's point is that, statistically, the 'both' is a much smaller overlap than the overlap between 'pro-choice' and 'pro-raising'...

[kramerica.inc]

Saying people who are pro life "lose interest" in the baby once it's born is a straw man.
It's a great response, but still a straw man, and not true for all.
I'd argue that if you are pro life, you must be "pro-raising." And that continues even beyond the kid's 18th bday.

I think by "must" you mean "should"...and I'd agree that it's possible to be both...but '72's point is that, statistically, the 'both' is a much smaller overlap than the overlap between 'pro-choice' and 'pro-raising'...

And to clarify, I don't mean raising the child yourself. I mean those who are pro-life should be just as open to support programs, etc. that encourage the proper resources and care to RAISE a child through adulthood.

[MDlaxfan76]

Saying people who are pro life "lose interest" in the baby once it's born is a straw man.
It's a great response, but still a straw man, and not true for all.
I'd argue that if you are pro life, you must be "pro-raising." And that continues even beyond the kid's 18th bday.

I think by "must" you mean "should"...and I'd agree that it's possible to be both...but '72's point is that, statistically, the 'both' is a much smaller overlap than the overlap between 'pro-choice' and 'pro-raising'...

And to clarify, I don't mean raising the child yourself. I mean those who are pro-life should be just as open to support programs, etc. that encourage the proper resources and care to RAISE a child through adulthood.

Yup.

[DMac]

I get what you boys are saying in that ultimately it ends with control but I don't think ONW is thinking about that part, I believe he's seeing it as a right or wrong thing in the eyes of God. He can speak for himself but that's the way I'm seeing it. The control thing is just a by product of that kind of view/thinking.

well, that could possibly have been correct, not "thinking about that part", which is why the responses point out, repeatedly, what else deserves consideration.

Even after multiple such responses, if a poster ignores that counterpoint consideration, I think it's safe to assume that's on purpose, not merely not "thinking" about it.

I'm fine with, indeed would encourage, anyone praying for guidance in their personal life, making decisions for themselves balancing all of one's considerations including imagining what God would want us to choose, but when we cross over into forcing others to conform to our own balancing, that's when we need to be very careful.

... that's the genesis of my "I am not giving benefit of doubt anymore" comment. They never seem to listen or address the other things that need to be considered. I think I have only ever received a single response to the issue of losing interest in the baby, once out of the so called "pro-life" crowd, that was from Kramer.

That's because there are no other considerations. This is in the eyes of God, and it's about the Sixth Commandment.
There are no considerations beyond that with those who are of that belief.

[jhu72]

Saying people who are pro life "lose interest" in the baby once it's born is a straw man.
It's a great response, but still a straw man, and not true for all.
I'd argue that if you are pro life, you must be "pro-raising." And that continues even beyond the kid's 18th bday.

I think by "must" you mean "should"...and I'd agree that it's possible to be both...but '72's point is that, statistically, the 'both' is a much smaller overlap than the overlap between 'pro-choice' and 'pro-raising'...

And to clarify, I don't mean raising the child yourself. I mean those who are pro-life should be just as open to support programs, etc. that encourage the proper resources and care to RAISE a child through adulthood.

... and you are the first "pro-life" individual who I have heard say that (in 40 years of having these discussions). Most of the time the response you get is, the parents (always identified as the woman) made their bed, let them lay in it. But even your answer is insufficient. It's a bullet point. There is a lot of detail left out. A big issue in that discussion will be public money going to churches.

[jhu72]

I get what you boys are saying in that ultimately it ends with control but I don't think ONW is thinking about that part, I believe he's seeing it as a right or wrong thing in the eyes of God. He can speak for himself but that's the way I'm seeing it. The control thing is just a by product of that kind of view/thinking.

well, that could possibly have been correct, not "thinking about that part", which is why the responses point out, repeatedly, what else deserves consideration.

Even after multiple such responses, if a poster ignores that counterpoint consideration, I think it's safe to assume that's on purpose, not merely not "thinking" about it.

I'm fine with, indeed would encourage, anyone praying for guidance in their personal life, making decisions for themselves balancing all of one's considerations including imagining what God would want us to choose, but when we cross over into forcing others to conform to our own balancing, that's when we need to be very careful.

... that's the genesis of my "I am not giving benefit of doubt anymore" comment. They never seem to listen or address the other things that need to be considered. I think I have only ever received a single response to the issue of losing interest in the baby, once out of the so called "pro-life" crowd, that was from Kramer.

That's because there are no other considerations. This is in the eyes of God, and it's about the Sixth Commandment.
There are no considerations beyond that with those who are of that belief.

... I most certainly understand that. That's why the answer you get if any answer at all "is the woman made her bed, let her lay in it" The "anti-woman" movement is about punishment even more than abortion itself.

[kramerica.inc]

Saying people who are pro life "lose interest" in the baby once it's born is a straw man.
It's a great response, but still a straw man, and not true for all.
I'd argue that if you are pro life, you must be "pro-raising." And that continues even beyond the kid's 18th bday.

I think by "must" you mean "should"...and I'd agree that it's possible to be both...but '72's point is that, statistically, the 'both' is a much smaller overlap than the overlap between 'pro-choice' and 'pro-raising'...

And to clarify, I don't mean raising the child yourself. I mean those who are pro-life should be just as open to support programs, etc. that encourage the proper resources and care to RAISE a child through adulthood.

... and you are the first "pro-life" individual who I have heard say that (in 40 years of having these discussions). Most of the time the response you get is, the parents (always identified as the woman) made their bed, let them lay in it. But even your answer is insufficient. It's a bullet point. There is a lot of detail left out. A big issue in that discussion will be public money going to churches.

The church deserves no money. Unless they get certified, bid and win a contract to provide said services. Just like any other business/org.

[MDlaxfan76]

I get what you boys are saying in that ultimately it ends with control but I don't think ONW is thinking about that part, I believe he's seeing it as a right or wrong thing in the eyes of God. He can speak for himself but that's the way I'm seeing it. The control thing is just a by product of that kind of view/thinking.

well, that could possibly have been correct, not "thinking about that part", which is why the responses point out, repeatedly, what else deserves consideration.

Even after multiple such responses, if a poster ignores that counterpoint consideration, I think it's safe to assume that's on purpose, not merely not "thinking" about it.

I'm fine with, indeed would encourage, anyone praying for guidance in their personal life, making decisions for themselves balancing all of one's considerations including imagining what God would want us to choose, but when we cross over into forcing others to conform to our own balancing, that's when we need to be very careful.

... that's the genesis of my "I am not giving benefit of doubt anymore" comment. They never seem to listen or address the other things that need to be considered. I think I have only ever received a single response to the issue of losing interest in the baby, once out of the so called "pro-life" crowd, that was from Kramer.

That's because there are no other considerations. This is in the eyes of God, and it's about the Sixth Commandment.
There are no considerations beyond that with those who are of that belief.

I think you make the point why it's nearly always fair to assume that for the 'religious right' "pro-life" crowd, there's no care for anything or anyone else other than their narrow view of the issue. Dead end to discussion.

That said, it's at least possible to have someone open their eyes to further considerations if challenged to do so in a respectful way.

That said, if God said to me clearly and unambiguously that abortion is always and forever wrong, all circumstances, I'd certainly weight that very heavily! But I don't think God has done so, not for me, nor any of them. It's just a claim.

[youthathletics]

That said, if God said to me clearly and unambiguously that abortion is always and forever wrong, all circumstances, I'd certainly weight that very heavily!

My goodness.....its no wonder all you do is nit pick everyone around here, you just admitted you would not even fully listen to God if he spoke to you.

[jhu72]

Saying people who are pro life "lose interest" in the baby once it's born is a straw man.
It's a great response, but still a straw man, and not true for all.
I'd argue that if you are pro life, you must be "pro-raising." And that continues even beyond the kid's 18th bday.

I think by "must" you mean "should"...and I'd agree that it's possible to be both...but '72's point is that, statistically, the 'both' is a much smaller overlap than the overlap between 'pro-choice' and 'pro-raising'...

And to clarify, I don't mean raising the child yourself. I mean those who are pro-life should be just as open to support programs, etc. that encourage the proper resources and care to RAISE a child through adulthood.

... and you are the first "pro-life" individual who I have heard say that (in 40 years of having these discussions). Most of the time the response you get is, the parents (always identified as the woman) made their bed, let them lay in it. But even your answer is insufficient. It's a bullet point. There is a lot of detail left out. A big issue in that discussion will be public money going to churches.

The church deserves no money. Unless they get certified, bid and win a contract to provide said services. Just like any other business/org.

... I agree with that, but then you have the getting paid to proselytize issue. It is the same issue we have today with giving churches social services money, through grants or contracts; public money going to churches for purposes of education. This is going to place limits based on what the left is willing to live with. I have my doubts about adoption absorbing all the babies. Probably more deficient children than well babies in the program. My point is, this is not an easy issue either.

Unfit mothers using the program to make a living, drug addicted babies, program mothers that don't take care of the babies they are carrying. Lots of ins an out here.

[jhu72]

That said, if God said to me clearly and unambiguously that abortion is always and forever wrong, all circumstances, I'd certainly weight that very heavily!

My goodness.....its no wonder all you do is nit pick everyone around here, you just admitted you would not even fully listen to God if he spoke to you.

... I want to see some identification first.

[youthathletics]

That said, if God said to me clearly and unambiguously that abortion is always and forever wrong, all circumstances, I'd certainly weight that very heavily!

My goodness.....its no wonder all you do is nit pick everyone around here, you just admitted you would not even fully listen to God if he spoke to you.

... I want to see some identification first.

Sometimes you are an alright guy....sometimes .

Merry Christmas jhu72

[CU88]

Madison Cawthorn shouldn’t be allowed to terminate his marriage. He should be forced to stay married for the rest of his life, as God intended.

[MDlaxfan76]

That said, if God said to me clearly and unambiguously that abortion is always and forever wrong, all circumstances, I'd certainly weight that very heavily!

My goodness.....its no wonder all you do is nit pick everyone around here, you just admitted you would not even fully listen to God if he spoke to you.

I think I'd be questioning my sanity if I imagined God had actually chosen to speak directly to me. As I said, I'd weight that very heavily (exclamation point !).

[MDlaxfan76]

That said, if God said to me clearly and unambiguously that abortion is always and forever wrong, all circumstances, I'd certainly weight that very heavily!

My goodness.....its no wonder all you do is nit pick everyone around here, you just admitted you would not even fully listen to God if he spoke to you.

... I want to see some identification first.

exactly.

[PizzaSnake]

That said, if God said to me clearly and unambiguously that abortion is always and forever wrong, all circumstances, I'd certainly weight that very heavily!

My goodness.....its no wonder all you do is nit pick everyone around here, you just admitted you would not even fully listen to God if he spoke to you.

I think I'd be questioning my sanity if I imagined God had actually chosen to speak directly to me. As I said, I'd weight that very heavily (exclamation point !).

Funny, when I was speaking with Her this morning that's not at all what she said about you.

Is claiming to speak with the divine (whatever that might be) any "crazier" than claiming to know her will per a collection of texts curated by fallible humans? So what of the prophets and Mohammed? They crazy? I would say yes.

That's the problem with organized religion. In cases such as Christianity, it's not the "message" of Christ, it is the human adherents that present the problem. Just go with Rabbi Hillel's dictum -- treat others as you would have them treat you -- and leave it at that. No temples, churches, mosques, charities necessary. Just do it and keep you opinions re others behavior to yourself.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

Decades ago when I was in high school, a young lady and I got together one night. I was feeling fine from our night of drinking and in hindsight foolish and completely irresponsible. We both wanted to go in the heat of the moment. The next morning when all was sober we realized we had a month of hoping and worrying ahead of us. I dreaded the possibility of having created a baby from our union that she didn’t want due to her college commitment. I knew ultimately it was her decision but it was an awful month of agonizing over what would happen to the child if she was indeed pregnant. Thankfully, there was no child and neither one of us had to have that on our consciences for the rest of our lives – wondering what our child would’ve looked like, what talents and gifts it would have had, what character traits she or he would have gotten from both of us, remembering each year around the time of a projected due date—my child would have been so many years old this year, etc. So, anyway, I know this is a very complex and difficult issue. I don’t speak of it lightly. I’ve thought about this issue for many years. One thing I have come to conclude about it is that abortion is the best thing that ever happened to men. It completely alleviates men of any responsibility both before and after.

Yet the drive to remove the choice seems to me to be completely driven by men. At least they seem to be the faces I see most.

I was looking around a little more and found a couple other places where women are leading the "drive to remove the choice" as you put it. I don't know that each philosophy and/or ideology fits neatly into the category but it does seem that on the whole, these women are against abortion in differing degrees.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_feminism

https://concernedwomen.org/about/our-ex ... -trustees/

Just a note addressing some of the questions and statements made by others in this thread--I have read them and am thinking about the different points made and different questions asked. I want to think about them before I respond. I don't have answers to most points raised. As I have stated, this is no easy topic.

I can say without thinking any further on it that I don't condemn women who have aborted their babies. It happened in my own family. I found out about it after the fact from someone else in my family. My first reaction, and only thought on it since then has been sadness for my very close family member, that she went through that excruciatingly difficult decision and time in her life. I grieve for her because I know it affected her deeply. I grieve for another member of our family that we never got to meet and get to know and watch grow up. I think it's cruel and grossly insensitive to condemn a woman who has had an abortion.

There was an earlier discussion about babies who were born and then ignored and/or not wanted. I've seen that happen very close to me; yet when the children were older. I was dating a woman years ago who was in that kind of situation. As we dated and got to know each other, she confided in me that she had left her husband and four children. She was still in touch with them but she didn't want to live with them anymore. Her children ranged from 5 to 18 or so, the three youngest closer in age to the 5 year old than the 18 year old. It happens. Children become ignored and unwanted at any age. We're human. We don't always make decisions that are best for all concerned. I'm guilty of that myself within my own family. There were times when my kids were growing up that I was distracted with work, or the state of my marriage, or my own interests. One time it was a book club. Nothing wrong with a book club but when I look back in retrospect I see that it distracted me from my (then) wife and kids. I regret it now but I didn't consider it then.

As for the numbers in the gallup poll MDlaxfan76 mentioned. I have no problem with his/her view. I didn't think 9% was a significant swing (if I remember the percentage correctly) but that's me. MD sees it differently and that's okay.

This is a very difficult issue and topic. As abortion has happened in my family, I live closer with it than those who don't know anyone in their family who has aborted. Doesn't mean my opinion is worth any more than anyone else's. I could have been responsible for 4 abortions myself when I was a stupid, selfish teenager being led around by my own reckless desires, but God had mercy on the young women I was dating at the time, and me. I don't know how else to say it. I have no good to claim for myself in how I just went with it in the heat of the moment. Four times I went through it--she and I waiting and hoping and agonizing while we waited for the end of the month. Did I learn after the 1st, 2nd, 3rd time? Nope--my stupidity and selfishness just wanted to engage and the previous "lessons" we're a drowned out voice in the moment of passion.

So anyway, just some more thoughts on the topic. I know there are other questions others have raised. I can say in response--I'm still thinking about them. That's one of the reasons I value this forum--I get exposed to all kinds of different views and perspectives that I otherwise wouldn't be exposed to working in a blue collar, largely high-school diploma (me included) and 98% male environment. It takes time to think and mull and ponder perspectives outsurrounding this issue. For me, this isn't a topic I want to respond to off-the-cuff.

[MDlaxfan76]

Decades ago when I was in high school, a young lady and I got together one night. I was feeling fine from our night of drinking and in hindsight foolish and completely irresponsible. We both wanted to go in the heat of the moment. The next morning when all was sober we realized we had a month of hoping and worrying ahead of us. I dreaded the possibility of having created a baby from our union that she didn’t want due to her college commitment. I knew ultimately it was her decision but it was an awful month of agonizing over what would happen to the child if she was indeed pregnant. Thankfully, there was no child and neither one of us had to have that on our consciences for the rest of our lives – wondering what our child would’ve looked like, what talents and gifts it would have had, what character traits she or he would have gotten from both of us, remembering each year around the time of a projected due date—my child would have been so many years old this year, etc. So, anyway, I know this is a very complex and difficult issue. I don’t speak of it lightly. I’ve thought about this issue for many years. One thing I have come to conclude about it is that abortion is the best thing that ever happened to men. It completely alleviates men of any responsibility both before and after.

Yet the drive to remove the choice seems to me to be completely driven by men. At least they seem to be the faces I see most.

I was looking around a little more and found a couple other places where women are leading the "drive to remove the choice" as you put it. I don't know that each philosophy and/or ideology fits neatly into the category but it does seem that on the whole, these women are against abortion in differing degrees.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_feminism

https://concernedwomen.org/about/our-ex ... -trustees/

Just a note addressing some of the questions and statements made by others in this thread--I have read them and am thinking about the different points made and different questions asked. I want to think about them before I respond. I don't have answers to most points raised. As I have stated, this is no easy topic.

I can say without thinking any further on it that I don't condemn women who have aborted their babies. It happened in my own family. I found out about it after the fact from someone else in my family. My first reaction, and only thought on it since then has been sadness for my very close family member, that she went through that excruciatingly difficult decision and time in her life. I grieve for her because I know it affected her deeply. I grieve for another member of our family that we never got to meet and get to know and watch grow up. I think it's cruel and grossly insensitive to condemn a woman who has had an abortion.

There was an earlier discussion about babies who were born and then ignored and/or not wanted. I've seen that happen very close to me; yet when the children were older. I was dating a woman years ago who was in that kind of situation. As we dated and got to know each other, she confided in me that she had left her husband and four children. She was still in touch with them but she didn't want to live with them anymore. Her children ranged from 5 to 18 or so, the three youngest closer in age to the 5 year old than the 18 year old. It happens. Children become ignored and unwanted at any age. We're human. We don't always make decisions that are best for all concerned. I'm guilty of that myself within my own family. There were times when my kids were growing up that I was distracted with work, or the state of my marriage, or my own interests. One time it was a book club. Nothing wrong with a book club but when I look back in retrospect I see that it distracted me from my (then) wife and kids. I regret it now but I didn't consider it then.

As for the numbers in the gallup poll MDlaxfan76 mentioned. I have no problem with his/her view. I didn't think 9% was a significant swing (if I remember the percentage correctly) but that's me. MD sees it differently and that's okay.

This is a very difficult issue and topic. As abortion has happened in my family, I live closer with it than those who don't know anyone in their family who has aborted. Doesn't mean my opinion is worth any more than anyone else's. I could have been responsible for 4 abortions myself when I was a stupid, selfish teenager being led around by my own reckless desires, but God had mercy on the young women I was dating at the time, and me. I don't know how else to say it. I have no good to claim for myself in how I just went with it in the heat of the moment. Four times I went through it--she and I waiting and hoping and agonizing while we waited for the end of the month. Did I learn after the 1st, 2nd, 3rd time? Nope--my stupidity and selfishness just wanted to engage and the previous "lessons" we're a drowned out voice in the moment of passion.

So anyway, just some more thoughts on the topic. I know there are other questions others have raised. I can say in response--I'm still thinking about them. That's one of the reasons I value this forum--I get exposed to all kinds of different views and perspectives that I otherwise wouldn't be exposed to working in a blue collar, largely high-school diploma (me included) and 98% male environment. It takes time to think and mull and ponder perspectives outsurrounding this issue. For me, this isn't a topic I want to respond to off-the-cuff.

First, Merry Christmas Eve!

Second, my pronouns are he, him, his... I'm pretty open about my identity on here...where I played, where my dad and son played, etc.

Your thoughts and explanation above are interesting. As you have noted, they aren't actually responsive, yet, to the questions and challenges posed by others. That's obviously fine, they deserve contemplation not snap responses.

I did have one thought as you described your early experiences that could have resulted in an unwanted pregnancy, which I take to indicate that you understand that such will happen, our impulses often overtake our concerns about consequences, and perhaps nowhere more so than matters of sex. And that thought has to do with the importance of education and birth control resources enabling safe, protected sex, should one engage. I recall how important it was for my future wife to be able to get access to birth control counseling and pills when we were considering that next step in our relationship, spring of freshman year in college. She was still 17 (wicked smart gal), however the older women on her hall were able to guide her to a Planned Parenthood in West Lebanon, NH, a taxi ride from Hanover, where she was able to obtain assistance. She's been forever grateful for that support, as was I. Many other girls and young women, however, did not and do not have access to that kind of birth control support, or relationship with other supportive women, enabling such advance planning. And many, if not most, boys and men do not take the necessary care either, all the more so in instances of abuse of some sort. Even the fear of AIDS and other STD's have not made this a sufficiently protective path of protection.

We've known multiple women who had abortions, mostly when very young, though one was much later, post other children, unhappy marriage. None expressed that it was an easy decision, though none regretted it either.

My main point for consideration is that there are multiple interests at stake in how society addresses this issue, beyond simply the potentiality of an independent human life at conception and thereafter. Women tend to see those balancing of interests a bit differently than men, which is certainly an understandable tendency given the relative lack of consequences for the men, as well as our general infrastructure of patriarchy in this society.

But not all women. Mostly, I'd posit, due to that same ideological patriarchal system, much of which I'd further posit is bolstered, on purpose, through religious dogma and institutions.

As I said, there are indeed "Serena Joy" examples aplenty.