<p>
</p>
<p>Sometimes it seems higher than that. Of all my friends and acquaintances (in their 20s, 30s, 40s), I’d say at least 3 out of 4 have had abortions. That I know of.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe the younger mothers, but not the older mothers. I know older mothers devastated by poverty, but I’ve never met anyone who regretted having her babies.</p>
<p>Have you?</p>
<p>"Everyone who things that a young girl’s parents ought to have a say in a pregnancy decision needs to read post #275^^^^^^^^^</p>
<p>Weak-willed moms are going to be a sourse of advice and support of their pregnant daughter’s decision? NOT!"</p>
<p>Right because that anecdote is representative of every mother in America. Nice what you think of women.</p>
<p>“No, I did not introduce the subject of making premarital sex illegal nor countenance it if it were the will of the voters.”</p>
<p>I didn’t introduce it, either. I was responding to a question where someone else introduced the topic.</p>
<p>The mom in my post was weak-willed at the time she let her husband convince her to have an abortion, but guess what: She LEARNED and grew from this traumatic experience (and yes, for her it was very traumatic. She wanted that baby.).</p>
<p>She is now quite a different person than she was 20+ years ago. In fact, she’s a powerhouse! She has most definitely advised her own daughter on issues such as this. (Although there are, of course, many middle-aged women who are still weak-willed.)</p>
<p>So this example should not be used to argue the case that parents should not advise their children. Sure, there will always be some neglectful or abusive parents, but the kids of caring parents shouldn’t have to pay the price for that. We trust parents on everything else, right? We trust them to feed their kids, and take care of them until they are 18, right? Why should abortion be any different?</p>
<p>The argument that teens should not be required to get parental consent is completely baseless. To anyone that believes this way: Do you think teens should be able to get alcohol too? Or any of the other things prohibited by age and currently left to the supervision of the parents?</p>
<p>Why would you want to take away the supervision of the parents on this one issue when you don’t propose taking it away on other issues?</p>
<p>I introduced it - it was I - blame me. </p>
<p>Since anti-sodomy laws are still on the books in some states and it took the Supreme Court to tell Texas in 2003 that its law was unconstitutional, and since there are still laws on the books in some states that make cohabitation a crime, I don’t think it is so far-fetched that some forms of contraception could be outlawed in some states. I would like to see the federal government continue to offer protection of reproductive rights - that is my point.</p>
<p>Cartera, I don’t think it’s farfetched at all. My point (which I obviously didn’t make very clearly) was that voters do have the right to put a stop to governmental overreach. I objected to the use of the word “government” because “government” is elected by someone, even if we don’t agree. I also think that fair minded people can consider the possibility that the issue would be less contentious if it were agreed upon by the people, instead of imposed from above. I know many lawyers who think that Roe v. Wade created as many problems as it solved and that there are better ways to achieve its desired result. Who knows? I’m not a lawyer</p>
<p>sjmom, just wanted to take issue with something:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You say that, but clearly in society we really, really don’t treat people as if they are priceless, and you know it. The problem is not even close to just limited to abortion, either.</p>
<p>Good point. People tend to be considered priceless only to those who love them.</p>
<p>Yet, most people would jump in a river to save a drowning child they didn’t know.</p>
<p>“I’ve never met anyone who regretted having her babies. Have you?”</p>
<p>Yes, I have. Expressing regret about having children at all is an iron-clad taboo in middle-class America for good reason (what an awful thing for a child to hear), but if you work with other populations, not everyone obeys that taboo. Also, even middle-class people often acknowledge regret at having children when and with whom they did. Since most women who have an abortion go on to have children – more than 90% of American women will have at least one child – the time and place of having children is what they’re controlling with abortion, not the decision to have children at all.</p>
<p>Quite independent of the morality of abortion, if it were as unheard-of to regret having a child as you believe, then why don’t you advocate the abandonment of birth control? I mean, I’m over 18 and I have a job, and my last boyfriend was a nice stable guy, so were we foolish to avoid pregnancy? If I’d gotten pregnant by accident and carried to term, you are convinced that today I would be glad that it happened, right? It seems to me that if having a child is a decision you can’t regret, then you’re always hurting yourself by using birth control (or being abstinent, for that matter).</p>
<p>ZM (303): no, but your response seemed to countenance the idea that if voters approved such a law within a country/state/county/whatever, then it would be okay. </p>
<p>In short, no it isn’t.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sorry, I was under the impression that women can’t have abortions up until the moment of birth - where did you hear otherwise?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So what? We’re arguing about a philosophical thing, right? Few would argue that the fetus isn’t alive.</p>
<p>"ZM (303): no, but your response seemed to countenance the idea that if voters approved such a law within a country/state/county/whatever, then it would be okay. </p>
<p>In short, no it isn’t."</p>
<p>Maybe it seemed that way to you, but that wasn’t the intent as written. I clarified down below (or tried to). But to reiterate, I was taking issue with the use of the term “government” in the specific post to which I was responding. As I’ve said about gay marriage and about abortion, if you’re over 18 and not hurting anyone else, your preferences are your business.</p>
<p>ZG - unless a Democrat is elected president in '08, I don’t think Roe v Wade will be an issue much longer. The whole Griswold/Roe line of cases will fall.</p>
<p>Does anyone else wonder what purpose this thread is serving? It seems that there are those who are one side of the argument and others who are on the other side and they keep ‘scoring’ points. </p>
<p>Just curious- is there anyone here who is in the “undecided” category?</p>
<p>“unless a Democrat is elected president in '08” </p>
<p>Hillary, I tell you!</p>
<p>Vicariousparent, my point in posting is to show that there are actually some gray areas. To dispel the myth that everyone who self-identifies as pro-life is a raging ayhotallah who wants women barefoot and pregnant. That there are thoughtful people on both sides, who are friendly on other topics, supportive of each other, and who are not demons even if the end result is courteous disagreement.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What a strange question. I have repeatedly stated that I am in favor of birth control, but that life still has risks, despite our best efforts, and we all know that when we have sex. I believe in the philosophy that teens are mature enough to have sex when they are willing to face the possible consequences.</p>
<p>Just because I don’t believe in killing an unplanned baby does not mean I think we shouldn’t try to prevent an unplanned pregnancy. I believe in accepting that life has risks, doing our best to minimize those risks, but, at the same time, being willing to accept the consequences of our actions, should our precautions fail for whatever reason.</p>
<p>I still stand by my contention that more women regret their abortions than they do their births, and certainly more so than giving the baby up for adoption.</p>
<p>Please see also my posts on page 15 of this thread.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>At any given moment, life has myriad choices. (Anyone see What the Bleep??) If you had chosen to have that baby, chances are you would have gained in strength and maturity, and ended up loving the child, so much so that you couldn’t possibly imagine life without that child.</p>
<p>But that doesn’t mean that was the only possible path for you. You could just as easily not gotten pregnant, gone to college, had a fulfilling career, whatever, and ended up just as happy.</p>
<p>Each time we make a choice, we create a new future and negate the other possible futures. Having a child and being happy about that choice can be wonderful, but UNTIL you are actually pregnant, you could easily choose a different path and be happy too.</p>
<p>So no, I certainly do not think that we must just surrender to life completely and not make any efforts at all to create our own futures. To have zero control over contraception is completely backwards, imo. It’s an extreme view. </p>
<p>Not to be confused with couples who consciously choose to not use contraception and have large families because they really want large families, of course. I recently met a powerhouse of a woman, a true ‘Supermom’ who has 6 kids and they seem like a really happy family. If they are able to do that, go for it! But that’s not what I’m referring to here - I am referring to the ‘barefoot and pregnant’ stereotype of women not using any contraception out of ignorance, and having lots of babies when they aren’t prepared to care for them, when they easily could have avoided the scenario with contraception.</p>
<p>A woman who consistently uses contraception might have an unplanned pregnancy, which she could then either accept (thereby choosing a different path in life) with joy, or give the baby up for adoption, but someone who uses contraception is not going to have 6 or 8 or 10 ‘accidents.’ Contraception is way more effective than that.</p>
<p>The irony in this whole discussion is that people do not seem to understand that eliminating legal abortion does not eliminate CHOICE - it just determines that the CHOICE has to occur PRIOR to engaging in sexual activity.</p>
<p>You can still CHOOSE to have a baby, or CHOOSE not to - it’s not like there isn’t birth control! It would be a different argument if abortion were the only way to keep from having a baby.</p>
<p>Wow, bz2010, duh…WOW! Thanks for pointing out the obvious.</p>
<p>This is worth repeating.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well said!!!</p>
<p>And I would agree that eliminating legal abortion would not eliminate choice - it’ll just be done in secrecy, in dank basements, dark alleys, other countries, etc.</p>
<p>Now that I’ve got that out of my system, I do have to say I’m a little disappointed this thread has turned into an abortion discussion. I’d like to hear more about people’s theories as to why Robertson has endorsed Giuliani; I guess I’m still in shock about it.</p>
<p>teriwitt: my theory is that Robertson was getting back at the values voter conference that embraced Romney and huckabee. In fact, my dad said that Robertson was once president of the organization or had major responsiblity. So basically I think he just wanted to get back at the value’s voter conference people and Guilliani is also a big supporter for israel, Robertson’s pet peave.</p>