What about abortion? - Page 19 - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#541 Old 07-13-2004, 10:55 AM
Veggie Regular
 
bethanie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 4,914
Ruthie...I think to this is all mixed up for women in how we view ourselves, the opportunities we have for improving our situations through education etc. What was that Eleanor Rosevelt said? "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." when you don't see anyone else doing differently, and nobody in your family has managed to do differently, and you go to school with people who don't do any differently, how are you supposed to be different?



I think in essence there's a deep shame involved in sexuality for women (the women I'm talking about anyway...heck, my self at one time). I wish I could pinpoint where exactly it comes from and why we can't just self-help book it away. I think a lot of it has to do with the way parents talk/don't talk about sex with their girls. And of course there's the societal issue. Raising a girl is hard....heck, it's downright scarey sometimes. And this very issue is the main reason for it being as difficult as it is. The fact is that they're SOOO vulnerable when they're young...and you're exactly right ruthieb. You can't teach a person something if they already know everything. And what can I say, I did the same thing from 18-25. Nobody could tell me anything I didn't know already.



B
bethanie is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#542 Old 07-13-2004, 11:00 AM
Veggie Regular
 
bethanie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 4,914
"That's a good point, but I have to wonder whether kids aren't listening because the education messages don't make sense in certain cultural contexts. It makes sense, for example, not to use condoms in a relationship perceived to be monogamous, since condoms are tied to promiscuity. If education fails, it may be the student's fault, but chances it's a sign that educators need to rethink their strategies"



This is a good point as well. Plus how many young women are even comfortable enough to insist a condom be used if the guy is against it, or bring along their own supply.



We definitely need to rethink our strategies.



B
bethanie is offline  
#543 Old 07-13-2004, 11:07 AM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terra View Post




Maybe. But maybe half of that is just show, or the natural response to educators who appear to be condescending. (I know that's why I ignored my health teachers.)



Terra





Could be that you thought you already knew it?? Seems like you are pretty knowledgable in many areas (or at least you seem to be). I doubt that many teachers are condensending on purpose.



It is true to me, based on my relationships with people, that you can't teach someone something if they aren't open to learning it.
GhostUser is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#544 Old 07-13-2004, 11:53 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Sorrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsRuthieB View Post

What opportunites would those be?





Opportunites being education, homes and shelters provided, planned parenthood, and so on.
Sorrow is offline  
#545 Old 07-13-2004, 12:04 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Sorrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 474
"But our attitudes about women having babies has not changed. As I mentioned above we are still operating under the age old philosophy of 'if you didn't want a baby, you should have kept your legs closed.' "



Some think that way but there are now forms of birth control that are openly available to women and even teens if needed.







"Not to mention the woman is held totally responsible and the guy...well, he MAY show up. He might decide to be a father. So basically you've got the care of a human being in many cases deligated to someone under twenty who's poor, uneducated and very likely to continue to be this way. People don't want to give up their babies, "



Yes a good portion of fathers bail and I have great respect for those that do stick around. I know a man raising his three boys as a single father and I find it very noble



Everyone is responsible for there own actions
Sorrow is offline  
#546 Old 07-13-2004, 12:54 PM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sorrow View Post

Opportunites being education, homes and shelters provided, planned parenthood, and so on.



I don't get it. How does a single mother continue her education while trying to raise a child? Do the tax payers help to pay for this opportunity? Or does she have to work to provide for the child while attending school? Unless you are talking about opportunities women have prior to becoming pregnant? About housing: The only housing I know that is provided is Section 8 housing. And that's not really free, it's rent based on your income (assuming you have income). I don't know that I'd consider that an opportunity.
GhostUser is offline  
#547 Old 07-13-2004, 01:27 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Terra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsRuthieB View Post

Could be that you thought you already knew it?? Seems like you are pretty knowledgable in many areas (or at least you seem to be).



That's certainly possible: it is hard to try to convince someone who grew up and worked in a gay bar during the 1980s that a conservative suburbanite knows more about sex. (At least about HIV/AIDS, which is what almost all of my sex ed consisted of.) But I think it had more to do with the fact that I had been reading about the ongoing curricula debates since we moved to the area. When you know how politicized it is, it's hard to take seriously.



I'm sure most suburbanites know more about the useful parts of sex, like how to have an orgasm or maintain a long-term relationship, than I ever will. Unfortunately, those aren't covered in sex-ed these days (even though they probably should be).



Quote:
I doubt that many teachers are condensending on purpose.



When I look back on it, I don't think they were. I think it's just the social cues we believed were due to a condescending attitude they associated with being emotionally removed from the material and with teaching contradictory information mandated by the district (two things which public school teachers had to be in order to keep their jobs). But the intentional or unintentional perception needs to be addressed for students who are unlucky enough to have this feeling about their sex ed courses.



Quote:
It is true to me, based on my relationships with people, that you can't teach someone something if they aren't open to learning it.



That's definitely true, especially in terms of immediate results. But I have to wonder about a wider time frame. What if it's the type of information that seems to be ignored at first, but sticks around in the back of kids' minds until they need it? What if it's part of a culture of comfort with certain decisions (i.e., condoms instead of birth control pills)?



Terra
Terra is offline  
#548 Old 07-13-2004, 01:32 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Terra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sorrow View Post

"But our attitudes about women having babies has not changed. As I mentioned above we are still operating under the age old philosophy of 'if you didn't want a baby, you should have kept your legs closed.' "



Some think that way but there are now forms of birth control that are openly available to women and even teens if needed.



They're not necessarily widely available to teens: in many conservative areas, laws are very strict about parental consent. Furthermore, the types of clinics that support these services are slowly being eroded by conservative activists and fiscal problems.



Access issues aside, since when was birth control 100% effective?



Quote:
Everyone is responsible for there own actions



Noble cases aside, it appears that under your position, some people -- women -- are more responsible than others. Isn't that a bit sexist?



Terra
Terra is offline  
#549 Old 07-13-2004, 01:44 PM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terra View Post

That's certainly possible: it is hard to try to convince someone who grew up and worked in a gay bar during the 1980s that a conservative suburbanite knows more about sex. (At least about HIV/AIDS, which is what almost all of my sex ed consisted of.)



Terra



Not to derail the thread to much, but didn't you just turn 21 in 2002?



I still remember when the news hit about AIDS/HIV. I can see the cover of Time in my head like it was yesterday. Scared the crap out of me. When I was a teen and pre teen we never heard the term 'safe sex' (wish I would have though. I've been really lucky).



Anyhow, I understand what your saying. Life teaches some hard lessons some times..things you don't necessarily absorb in a classroom.
GhostUser is offline  
#550 Old 07-13-2004, 07:45 PM
Veggie Regular
 
bethanie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 4,914
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terra View Post




Noble cases aside, it appears that under your position, some people -- women -- are more responsible than others. Isn't that a bit sexist?



Terra



I have to admit this is one of the things that bothers me the most. It seems like we want to leave this heaping responsibility (TRY being responsible for another human being's life some time...it's pretty dang complicated even on the good days. And I'm single by choice--divorced--AND well educated enough to make my own way in the world) at the feet of the most vulnerable among us.



And shelters...that's veiwed as an 'opportunity.' Really? Isn't that a little like the Scrooge saying, "My tax money goes to pay for the poorhouses, the poor should go there."



I think what you're saying Sorrow is that you don't know the answer either. But you'd still rather argue about abortion being 'wrong or right' when I've got a boy in my class who very often doesn't know where he's going to be sleeping from day to day. Okay.



B
bethanie is offline  
#551 Old 07-13-2004, 09:33 PM
Banned
 
Life2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 4,791
I think we are dealing with two issues here which are seperate but also inseperable.



I believe abortion is wrong, but so is the neglect of children. Which one is the most wrong to kill a child before they are born or to let them suffer hunger, cold, and neglect untill they are big enough to fend for themselves?



Our state has many rich programs to help the single parent get on their feet, free daycare, free votec, free college. Many after school programs are offered. The things is you can't force people to take advantage of these things for their betterment. In our town we have 2 hot meals a day for children 5 days a week, 12 months a year. Our taxes are high, but since most of it goes to better the lives of children, I try to not gripe.



But still there are negelected and abused children. In our community many grandparents are raising grandchildren. Many people take in "strays" just so they will be fed and safe. Our fostercare program overflows most of the time, and we have a detention facility for teens who break the law repeatedly. Our suicide rate in teens is horrific and our drug problem is all too common.



So who has a good solution to all these problems children come with? Shall we watch the unwanted being neglected to death, that to me is slow murder. Or shall be let them be murdered befor they are born? Sorrow, I agree, but life just isn't that simple to the child who sleeps in the shed because he is afraid to go near his druggie parents.
Life2k is offline  
#552 Old 07-13-2004, 09:42 PM
Banned
 
Tame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 13,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by bethanie View Post


I think what you're saying Sorrow is that you don't know the answer either. But you'd still rather argue about abortion being 'wrong or right' when I've got a boy in my class who very often doesn't know where he's going to be sleeping from day to day. Okay.





And? Are you saying abortion would have been the better option for him? I know you said that isn't your position (and I think enough of you to believe it isn't), but honestly, that is what this sounds like again.
Tame is offline  
#553 Old 07-14-2004, 04:56 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Sorrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 474
"I think what you're saying Sorrow is that you don't know the answer either. But you'd still rather argue about abortion being 'wrong or right' when I've got a boy in my class who very often doesn't know where he's going to be sleeping from day to day. Okay."



I am sure this boy in you class would rather be alive now than been killed before he had a chance.. Yes the world is filled with injustices and there are many in bad situations but that does mean that abortion is right. The poor, the single mothers and even the homeless share times of joy and happiness through out their hardships making life worthwhile.
Sorrow is offline  
#554 Old 07-14-2004, 05:15 AM
Veggie Regular
 
bethanie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 4,914
I've never once said abortion is 'the answer.' But I think a lot of people believe abortion is 'the problem'. I'm saying I don't. And I stand by my belief that abortion is simply a consequence of things having gone the way they have in our society. That's all. I have personally very mixed feelings about abortion, and I deeply empathize with any woman who finds herself poor, desperate and unable and dealing with this very difficult choice. I just think if you haven't been there yourself, you don't know. And that's another part of the problem, many/most of the people who want to argue the topic on the basis of 'right and wrong' have never been there themselves.



Sorry I got a bit snippy tonight, but crap...I hate it for every kid that comes into my class with a screwed up life and screwed up parents.



Tame, it's impossible to say whether it would have been better. Of course this boy is HERE...and of course he's an awesome kid. But he should NOT in my opinion, have to deal with the circumstances he's in.



life2k....Thank you for voicing that. There are two different issues at work here...but if we look at it realistically, these two issues ARE inseperable. That's the point I'm trying to make.



B
bethanie is offline  
#555 Old 07-14-2004, 05:23 AM
Veggie Regular
 
bethanie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 4,914
While I've never had an abortion, I've been in the circumstances where I've had to make that choice. Or ended up not having to make that choice....



Until I was there I felt very strongly (at 24) that women should just 'keep their legs closed'. That abortion was very simply MURDER. Afterwards I felt very strongly that nobody should ever have to make that decision in the first place. No woman should ever be in that position. That we are....that's what's wrong.



B
bethanie is offline  
#556 Old 07-14-2004, 07:34 AM
Banned
 
Life2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 4,791
Bethanie,

You might be a little snippy tonight, but I have noticed over the year that you get that way only when you are hurting for someone. I think we all understand that.



I saw a lot of the same frustrating neglect and abuse over the years I taught in a low income school. But there was not one child I would have wanted to have seen aborted. I watched them grow up and had some of their children in class also. As poor as the community was only one child in that whole school ever committed suicide outright. The rest found life worth fighting for. In adulthood 95 percent turned out to be hardworking productive people who took good care of their children. The 5 percent went to jail or died at a young age from accidents and violence. I still think abortion isn't the answer, but I would stand in line to whip the parents who beat, starved, and molested their children.
Life2k is offline  
#557 Old 07-14-2004, 08:08 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Terra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsRuthieB View Post

Not to derail the thread to much, but didn't you just turn 21 in 2002?



Yeah -- I was born just as the issues were emerging in 1981. AIDS education started in second grade, mostly because my parents were furious when other kids were told -- by their parents -- not to talk to us because they could catch it.



Now that you mention it, I guess it wasn't sex ed per se, but since my high school classes had the same focus, I've always lumped them together in my head.



Quote:
I still remember when the news hit about AIDS/HIV. I can see the cover of Time in my head like it was yesterday. Scared the crap out of me. When I was a teen and pre teen we never heard the term 'safe sex' (wish I would have though. I've been really lucky).



To this day I'm terrified of the double whammy I've seen a few of my family friends go through: having a significant other cheat on them and catching HIV from it. It's so devastating that part of me wishes birth control pills were banned.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Life2k View Post

I saw a lot of the same frustrating neglect and abuse over the years I taught in a low income school. But there was not one child I would have wanted to have seen aborted. I watched them grow up and had some of their children in class also.



I've thought about this over the years, and I found inverting the thought experiment to be interesting as well. In other words, some of those kids may be there because their mothers had abortions previously, and for whatever reason, chose not to again. (Something like 90% of people who had abortions have kids at some point in their lives.) If it's true that children born to older parents have more resources, then...



Terra
Terra is offline  
#558 Old 07-14-2004, 08:11 AM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
I grew up in the casual sex era and was very lucky to have walked away disease free. Been tested 2x's for HIV. Negative. yeah me.
GhostUser is offline  
#559 Old 07-14-2004, 08:37 AM
Veggie Regular
 
bethanie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 4,914
Lol ruthieb...sometimes I wonder how I made it out alive
bethanie is offline  
#560 Old 07-14-2004, 08:49 AM
Veggie Regular
 
bethanie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 4,914
I think one thing I've learned from this conversation is that it's not enough for me anymore to sit around having it. I need to get involved somehow in my community with young mothers and women here...perhaps through a shelter or some community based program. I realize it's like throwing a thimblefull of water on a blazing fire. But this is something that is important. It's too important for people (imho) to sit around talking about it 'theoretically' on a discussion board and not do anything to make a change.



B
bethanie is offline  
#561 Old 07-14-2004, 09:55 AM
Banned
 
Life2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 4,791
You go, girl.
Life2k is offline  
#562 Old 07-16-2004, 08:29 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
Terra,



sorry for the really long delay.



Quote:
Somehow I'm just not getting how a fetus who is incapable of consent makes the problem less problematic. Our ethical system was designed to deal with sentience; those without it are outside of the system almost entirely, and thus would be less problematic on both counts. In my mind, it's like asking a metal scapel if it would mind being melted and reshaped to form a scalpel. Are we talking about two entirely different types of ethical systems, or am I missing something?



It seems like you might really be missing something (quite possibly as a result of my vague expression), as you seem to think that I argue about the immorality, or problematic nature, of aborting non-sentient fetuses, which is not what I argue. As far as I remember, I have in this context thought about two cases: 1) a sentient fetus incapable of informed consent 2) a hypothetical case, where there's a sentient fetus capable of informed consent. I have argued that a situation with a sentient fetus giving informed consent would be less problematic than a situation with a sentient fetus incapable of consent. (As you probably agree, this is self-evident, and I'm not sure why I began talking about that in the first place. It probably just was in the context of consent and abortion.)



As for non-sentient fetuses, I wouldn't call their situations completely clear cases (not saying that you think or don't think so, either) because there is still e.g. some utilitarian consideration of the "thought framework consequences" (i.e. how various attitudes are affected or formed) of how we view non-sentient human life in a context (of our society) where that is maybe given a "symbolic status" in relation to (sentient) human life in general. But, generally, in and as itself, I don't see a problem with abortion of non-sentient fetuses.



Quote:
(Remember, rights in our society tend to be more negative than positive.)



What is this related to?



Quote:
Fair enough. Most people, not to mention the U.S. legal system, have moral intuitions leading them to the opposite conclusion, if only because the body is the most fundamental part of life, while other burdens and punishments are far more malleable.



Well, as someone who supports a concept like AR which goes against the common intuitions of I guess majority of current Western cultures, I don't find that situation disastrous to my position (although it's not by any means a clear position, like my position on AR) on abortion You could argue, though, that those rights (related to body) are much more fundamental than speciesist attitudes, but I'm not sure what "level" of 'fundamental' is relevant, and how it can be argued.



Quote:
But if this is the case, should we torture prisoners? After all, if the body is no different from other burdens and cost/benefit analyses, then shouldn't this be permissible?



From the idea that body rights aren't absolute or most fundamental it doesn't follow that anything done to the body is permissible, or that the concept of proportionate punishment wouldn't apply.



Quote:
I'm discussing "absolute" within a specific Western cultural context. I'm not sure that there is a universal ethics, or absolute rights in a natural law sense. With that in mind, I'm not sure this argument really applies to my position.



The absolute right I referred to wasn't a concept of universal ethics but simply a right which should never be violated without punishment etc. By 'absolute right', I have and am referring to what I have interpreted to be your conception of the nature of the right concerning one's body.



Quote:
You may not find it counter-intuitive on the specific case, and to some extent that's understandable. But what would our society look like if we wrote it into the laws? (Remember, when you're dealing with a common-law system, that's exactly what you're doing.) You'd wind up with a state where, at the very least, prisoners are routinely harvested for organs, and torture for medical testing is perfectly acceptable.



1) I'd want to clarify that my comments about abortion, and about blood donation, are pretty much concentrated on an ethical approach, not a legal one, i.e. I don't necessarily argue for any drastic changes in the law.

2) And what you're arguing seems like an unwarranted slippery slope - from the idea that relevant responsibility for something creates obligations and restrictions (restrictions to what one chooses concerning one's body) to the idea that torture can be justified. Many responsibilities already (forms of contracts, for example - although I would emphasize that I don't mean that pregnancy would involve contracts) create obligations - just like it can be thought that being relevantly responsible for bringing a sentient entity to life creates obligations - and yet torturing (of humans) for medical testing isn't perfectly acceptable.



To me, what you're arguing seems a little similar to arguing that the idea that right to freedom isn't absolute would lead to life sentences, for the smallest offences, in extremely small cells.



Quote:
Yup. That's why we can back out of almost anything, especially where our bodies are involved.



But both in practical (promises which one breaks for trivial emotional reasons, causing problems to others) and more official matters (not abiding by contracts), backing out of something is often seen as morally questionable, if it causes harm/problems, and if the reasons for it don't seem to be good enough.



Quote:
How are you defining significant?



I would argue about responsibility and its relevance as regards restrictions/obligations as ethical guidelines and, instead of writing a definition on stone about e.g. 'significant', allow room for individual evaluation of particular cases.



Quote:
And what gives that definition more validity than an individual's emotional reality?



I think an individual can often evaluate his/her difficulties and emotional changes rather incorrectly. (But not necessarily, of course.)



Quote:
But I think that divide is a far more widespread problem than simply in pregnancy. Elsewhere, such as in marriage, we've decided to accept the fact that things change: so why not be consistent?



I'm not sure if I understand what you're getting at. If women fully accept and acknowledge that things (emotions etc.) can, and often will, change, then e.g. an emotional change isn't a very good basis for eliminating responsibility, because that was already "mentioned in the contract" (again, just a metaphor, not an analogy).

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#563 Old 07-16-2004, 11:32 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Terra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 421
Sevenseas, it's nice to know you're back! I have a bibliography deadline coming up, so I probably won't be able to post a response until Monday. (I'm forcing myself to keep to short posts until my work's done.)



Terra
Terra is offline  
#564 Old 07-16-2004, 11:48 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
No hurry

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#565 Old 07-18-2004, 10:17 PM
Beginner
 
Cinnamon Girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael View Post

I know I'm going to be on my own here but I'm pretty much against it except for certain instances such as rape, potential harm to the mother, etc. I think pro-choice means you can decide whether or not to have sex, whether or not to use birth control, etc. I don't believe abortion should be used as a method of birth control, to erase "mistakes", etc.



That is how I feel as well.



The hard part is, I do not think a rape victim should have to be questioned extensively or have to be placed in a position to 'prove' it was rape. Such women have been through far enough.



To me though, a fetus = a baby....and I love babies.
Cinnamon Girl is offline  
#566 Old 07-26-2004, 11:11 AM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
I'm trying to envision a social setting where this shirt would be appropriate attire . . . .



"Planned Parenthood is proud to offer yet another t-shirt in our new social fashion line: "I Had an Abortion" fitted T-shirts are now available. These soft and comfortable fitted tees assert a powerful message in support of women's rights.



Order yours for $15 each"





http://store.yahoo.com/ppfastore/ihadabt.html
GhostUser is offline  
#567 Old 07-26-2004, 11:14 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Christy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,414
That almost sounds like something from tshirthell.com.
Christy is offline  
#568 Old 07-26-2004, 11:26 AM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Just order Chocolate Birth Control Pills . Just the thing for a young ladies christmas stocking.
GhostUser is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off