andrewducker (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2004-01-18 10:31 pm
andrewducker) wrote2004-01-18 10:31 pm
Abortion
I say that I'm pro-choice, but the truth is that I'm actually anti-abortion. Rather, I'm pro-making sure that women have the resources and education available so that there's no need for abortions save those performed for medical reasons. The best way to stop abortions is to stop the need for abortions -- not with abstinence education that tells girls they're naughty for getting knocked up but doesn't tell them how to prevent it, but with realistic sex education and more resources for young women who find themselves pregnant and unable to afford prenatal care and postnatal expenses of raising a child
Which pretty much sums up how I feel.
Stolen from the ever-vigilant Lady Sysiphus.
no subject
You asked me what I meant by an unwanted pregnancy, and I've told you. Then, which seems fair, I asked what you meant.
no subject
To answer your question, where there is pressing medical or social need.
no subject
My answer is what I believe. I decline to make what I believe more complicated to suit other people.
I do not seek to change anybody's opinion, I am trying to learn, to understand why people think and feel the way that they do.
Well, that's a lifetime's job. But why would it be hard to understand that many women would not want to have their human rights taken away from them by fiat, regardless of whether or not they're pregnant?
As I am sure you are aware, this is a very contentious issue, and I take it very seriously. To be honest, and without wishing to be rude, your replies have taught me nothing at all.
Fair enough. I wasn't attempting to teach you anything, nor aware that you expected me to teach you anything.
To answer your question, where there is pressing medical or social need.
That seems to me to be a very odd way to define "unwanted".
no subject
I don't ask that you make your beliefs more complex, just that you help me understand them more accurately.
Regarding learning being a lifetime job, I fully concur. I am 51 years of age, and all my assimilated experience wisdom does is to confirm that I know almost nothing at all.
My definition being 'odd' may be a result of the previously mentioned 'cross-purpose'. I was specifically referring to late term abortions. If a woman wants a termination just because she doesn't want the child, I would hope that would have been addressed much earlier, i.e. before the foetus is sufficiently developed as to make the procedure a 'serious operation'. Under that specific circumstance I would totally agree that the woman has the right to decide whether anyone likes it or not.
no subject
Well, when I've gone into more detail, you've dismissed my beliefs as "rhetoric".
I was specifically referring to late term abortions.
Every time I try to follow through an argument about at what age a foetus "deserves" legal protection from abortion, it ends up getting more and more fiddly with tiny little points being counted as if they were major changes, simply because there is no one point in the entire gestation period that anyone can point to and say "Now that foetus is a person, and the day before it wasn't."
The really big (literally "sea-change") point is, in fact, the obvious point: the moment of birth. (Well, okay, not "moment" - the whole process can take hours or days or if you're lucky only minutes, but certainly not a moment.) That's my reason for picking that as the time the foetus ceases to be a foetus, with no rights, and becomes a baby, with all the rights of any human being.