Abortion Issues

[Wienerin]

Lets not attach labels.   Morality is a very uncertain thing - it's compass been know to change direction many times along human history. 

There's  no such thing as one morality for all times, all men, the whole human history. Which is not the same as to say what you said. For a given time an place the moral issues are normally pretty clear. Which again is not to say that fundamental Christian will have the same moral stand on all issues as a Black Panther or an atheist ardent feminist.  Moreover their peer groups will differ in their stands on different issues. So what is there to do? The answer is long known - laws. Laws reflect the PREVALENT moral climate of the society. Should to, at least.

And yes, it's rude - AND stupid to call someone else's argument "drivel". That's not an answer on issues, that's not a stand, that's not a civilized discussion and it plainly doesn't even make sense.

[Wienerin]

I suppose you mean its Immortal Soul, which entitles it to protection.  But when does the soul enter the embryo?  At conception? What if the embryo then divides into twins - its soul divides as well? 

Sorry, but this is a foul. You're a) mocking someone's beliefs which should be a no-no, b) you are asking someone - whose religious affiliation if any you do not know, also his proficiency with his church's dogmas to answer pretty sophisticated questions. Not much, though - a mediocre seminary srudent should be able to answer those, but for laypeople - pretty tough. BTW - can YOU answer those? And from the point of view of which religion?

  Now, if all of those miscarried fetuses had an immortal soul, wouldn't it place Whoever-made-the-decision-to-flush-them-out in a somewhat unfavorable light?  A extremely immoral action on His part. 

Plese, stop it. It's as cheap as any of Soviet-era atheistic pamphlets - and totally undeserving of you. You are free not to share in a person's beliefs, but should not ridicule those. Sorry...

A human being does not have an immovable right to survival if it must involve using the physical body of another human being. 

A HUMAN being does have this immutable right on some occasions like braining a house-burgler with something heavy and, even closer to the issue, when sending himan bodies of police and soldiers in the way of harm - to let other human bodies survive. Here we come around to the same problem - who is by law a human being. Not by any religion, not by some group's convictions - by the law of the land. As it stands now - starting at it's 6th month in the womb it's a chuld, a human being who cannot be terminated - i.e. killed, -  at will.

To my mind it's fair and reasonable (always with the mother's life superceding even at the moment of natural birth). If people disagree - there's a democratic process in the country of how the laws are changed.

[Wienerin]

You don't want to listen because you don't care
Pro-life humanists don't care about lives of these children, because for them it more humane to prolong their life as long as possible, they don't care about children who was born with syphilis, they don't care about psychological condition of a pregnant woman who are left alone by her boyfriend and he also doesn't care about her, pro-life people don't care about children who can be killed by their depressed mothers who are not able to handle parenting. Pro-life humanists care only about the idea of "fetus's life in conception"

Sorry, I'm definitely pro-choice, but as definitely I want to stand apart as far from you on these sentiments as I possibly could. What you've written is so outrageous that it defies all reason. So a justifiable cause for abortion - even in the third trimester - is the inability of one or both of gthe bio-parents to cope with life and their responsibilities? The girl got pregnant, the guy left her - let's kill the baby, she's depressed, for G-d' s sake! And let's kill the babies BEFORE they're born - because the Mommy just might get depressed after giving birth and kill them on her own which is definitely no-no... (not for every mother BTW - according to your choice of evidence )

So when it's OK to kill a viable child? And a living child - since you took this even further? Who promised the mother you've cited above that life would be a bowl of cherries? What if the child hasn't been born retarded, but had a head trauma, or became autistic, or got brain tumor? What if it happened when the child was already 10, 15, 18? What if it happened to her parents or husband?

If this nice lady - with whom I deeply commiserate having brought up a child with severe health problems myself, - is so sure that her child shouldn't be living and breathing why doesn't she solve this problem herself? Why does she want to put the burden of her suffering, frustration, exasperation - on all of us, whom she desires to make such law, on the doctors, on the executioners of this  meekly-sounding "euthanasia" thing. Do away with this burden - and there're are enough psychologists, psychiatrists and lawyers to explain how you couldn't help yourself, etc.

You're just so glib over the burdens of all these unfortunate parents - but why do you want to load them on people who disagree with your sweeping picture of justifiable infanticide?

So when a husband or BF leaves a woman with 2-3 his children - she is justified as Medea in killing them?

[OlgaH]

Wienerin,

Reading through your posts in this thread I have noticed that you rush about two positions and don't know what a position to choose to look better  More over all your positions, statements and replies are too superficial, just because you superficially selectively read trough the posts of opponents, therefore you can not draw a logic, and you are not able or just don't want to see the profundity of problem 

[Blues Fairy]

Sorry, but this is a foul. You're a) mocking someone's beliefs which should be a no-no, b) you are asking someone - whose religious affiliation if any you do not know, also his proficiency with his church's dogmas to answer pretty sophisticated questions. BTW - can YOU answer those? You are free not to share in a person's beliefs, but should not ridicule those. Sorry...

Wienerin, you must have missed some previous threads here where we were discussing precisely each others' beliefs/philosophy and any amount of irony was perfectly acceptable.  You are no moderator to tell me to "stop it" - it's against freedom of speech and doesn't make you look good.  If you are disgusted by anything I say, the ignore button is on the left under my avatar; please feel free to use it. 

Here we come around to the same problem - who is by law a human being. (...) To my mind it's fair and reasonable (always with the mother's life superceding even at the moment of natural birth). If people disagree - there's a democratic process in the country of how the laws are changed.

Both OlgaH and I were saying the same things, but using different examples - I don't see what exactly you're arguing with.  Arguing for the sake of arguing? 

[OlgaH]

And yes, it's rude - AND stupid to call someone else's argument "drivel". That's not an answer on issues, that's not a stand, that's not a civilized discussion and it plainly doesn't even make sense.

And what are you doing? 

Sorry, but this is a foul. You're a) mocking someone's beliefs which should be a no-no, b) you are asking someone - whose religious affiliation if any you do not know, also his proficiency with his church's dogmas to answer pretty sophisticated questions. Not much, though - a mediocre seminary srudent should be able to answer those, but for laypeople - pretty tough. BTW - can YOU answer those? And from the point of view of which religion?

Plese, stop it. It's as cheap as any of Soviet-era atheistic pamphlets - and totally undeserving of you. You are free not to share in a person's beliefs, but should not ridicule those. Sorry...

The distinction between a child/baby and a foetus is generally a pretty clear one (if you stay within the bio-medical data and do not drag religious beliefs, etc. into the discussion) - if the foetus is viable outside the womb, then it's a baby.

BUT - this is my point of view and again in general I do not demand of press other people to subscribe to it. The only issue where I think that public morals (whatever THAT means) have a stand is in the matter of late term abortions. Except when the foetus is a real threat to the mother these shouldn't be allowed in a civilized society.

So, when does the soul enter an embryo according to your beliefs?  Why a civilized society should kill a foetus-baby to save a woman?

Sorry, I'm definitely pro-choice, but as definitely I want to stand apart as far from you on these sentiments as I possibly could….  The girl got pregnant, the guy left her - let's kill the baby

Well, guys, let me tell you the news - we are here and now, with no man's (as in male, and no woman too) right to dictate when a woman should or should not bear a child, how many children to have, etc.

So, who has the right to dictate?

Here is a wonderful visual tool to follow the stages of embryonal development ehttp://www.visembryo.com/baby/carnegiestages.html - just click on the funny lump along the spiral, and read. As you can easily see only after 6 mos can the embryo survive (probably) outside mother's body. Until then - it's a part of her body, totally hers to dispose of as she wishes.

 

AND she has up to 6 mos to solve her problems regarding the future baby or lack thereof.

 

BTW - I simply cannot take men in the pro-life movement, sorry. Not your business, beautiful sirs. As to nobody saying anything about sperm - go read your Bible, please. Genesis 38:8 - if you do not have one, look it up on the internet. The sin of Onan, you know Capital punishment, by the way...

 Give birth and give the baby away for adoption - there're people standing in line for it.

How will you explain the fact that thousands and thousands of orphans and abandoned children are still without families?

How you will explain the fact that the Russian Government still prefer to keep the social circumstances that let a woman to make abortion till 22 weeks of her pregnancy.

You are so loud about abortions in the third trimester... but does somebody argument with you and say that it is acceptable without any questions?

BTW according to the Russian law about abortions the abortion after 12 weeks of pregnancy can be made only after a resolution by the special commission that includes doctors, lawyer, psychiatrist and others.

[Ronnie]

Wienerin, you must have missed some previous threads here where we were discussing precisely each others' beliefs/philosophy and any amount of irony was perfectly acceptable.  You are no moderator to tell me to "stop it" - it's against freedom of speech and doesn't make you look good.  If you are disgusted by anything I say, the ignore button is on the left under my avatar; please feel free to use it. 

Wienerin is not making the rules.  She is referring , I think, to the rules of this forum on the topic of religion.  If not that, they I suppose she could be espousing the rules of common courtesy.

I would also say to you Blues Fairy, that when one speaks in a free country she should do so with expectation that what she says will be challenged and she will be called on to defend her proposition.  Simply saying you have the right to speak or that the listener should use the ignore function is not a good defense and can be interpreted by observers as an inability to offer one.

Both OlgaH and I were saying the same things, but using different examples - I don't see what exactly you're arguing with.  Arguing for the sake of arguing? 

See my comment above. Wienerin and I disagree often.  In fact, this may be the only subject upon which we have found little on which to take issue with one another.  I find her to be a strong opponent in debate.  She does not, as you suggest, argue for the sake of arguing.  I have no reason to doubt she beleives everyone argument she makes.  What more can one expect from another person?

I have found you arguments also refreshing and well spoken on some, maybe most subjects, But I sense you are in a struggle with this one and seem not to be able to argue effectively.  Ditto for Olga, whose arguments are red herrings, citing extreme exceptions and not addressing the abortion-on-demand-for-convenience problem that plagues the world at present and especially Russia. 

And sorry, Wienerin, the issue is not the exclusive domain of females.  All of society is affected by the choice made others.  Men have a right and a duty to speak up and that speech should be the same one the would give were they a woman and the woman's view should be the same one she would have were she a man.  It is a societal problem in the overall. 

Extinction of a race of people is a difficult thing from which to recover. 

[Blues Fairy]

I would also say to you Blues Fairy, that when one speaks in a free country she should do so with expectation that what she says will be challenged and she will be called on to defend her proposition.  Simply saying you have the right to speak or that the listener should use the ignore function is not a good defense and can be interpreted by observers as an inability to offer one.

I have found you arguments also refreshing and well spoken on some, maybe most subjects, But I sense you are in a struggle with this one and seem not to be able to argue effectively. 

Ronnie - when one speaks in a free country, one hopes to do so with expectation that one's mouth shall not be shut with rude and patronizing remarks like "stop it" etc.  Contrary to what you "sense", I have no struggle with any subjects I engage in on this board.  If you do not comprehend my reasoning on this or any other subject, you should consider that it might not be the fault of my reasoning but your own comprehension skills.  Which is understandable, considering our polar ideological platforms. 

[OlgaH]

  Men have a right and a duty to speak up and that speech should be the same one the would give were they a woman and the woman's view should be the same one she would have were she a man.  It is a societal problem in the overall. 

Ronnie, men also must be responsible and must be made answerable for abortion. 

Yes, abortion is a social problem and all society must be responsible for it. Society where children very often become victims of domestic violence and pedophiles, society where children die from AIDS, society where children easily can get alcohol, drugs, porno magazines, computer games and movies that teach to kill...   

Abortion as a social problem has its roots in a society.

The lessons of the centuries show the prohibition of abortions causes the other social problems.  Before to implement a law about the prohibition of abortions the consciousness of whole society should be changed. It demands not only time but also great financial contribution.

There should be obligatory sexual and ethical education for children and also their parents. For example the teens in Russia can not make abortions without permission of their parents. 75% of teens pregnancies (that is 10-15% from the general % of pregnancies in Russia) end with abortion

The State should financially support people who would like to have children, but their financial circumstances don't let them.

The State should be ready to build new boarding schools for abandoned children...

And we all should be ready that the State will get all money for the expenses from the pockets  of tax-payers.       

     

[Taz]

Russia is getting plenty of money from oil and gas revenues. There is no need to increase taxes on people. With the increasing cost of oil, they could easily pay subsidies to help people have more children or to pay for the children that aren't wanted! Where is the money going? Besides the oligarchs that is!

[OlgaH]

Russia is getting plenty of money from oil and gas revenues. There is no need to increase taxes on people. With the increasing cost of oil, they could easily pay subsidies to help people have more children or to pay for the children that aren't wanted! Where is the money going? Besides the oligarchs that is!

I guess another one red (blue, green, yellow...) Revolution will help to nationalize the oligarchs' capital 

[BillyB]

they could easily pay subsidies to help people have more children

Germany tried that but it doesn't work and they still have one of the lowest birth rates in the World. I find it hard to believe all those unborn German children were defective or the mother life was in danger. What is dangerous is extinction. That's why they are accepting a lot of immigrants to keep population up and their industry going.

Russia's women at one time were aborting 7 out of 10 times. A ratio of only 3 out of a potential 10 kids were born. Abortions are less now since more people can afford kids. Money does play a factor for some people.

What's abortion have to do with RW? It's an important topic that needs to be discussed before marrying. In this case a RW. As those reading, you can see how fast people lose respect for each other based on what they say. Just think about what it would be like marrying a RW and waking up one day thinking she's a pro life/pro choice fanatic and lose all respect for her and she loses respect for you? All hot topics need to be discussed before marriage. Choose wisely.

Last year or a few years ago, the news announced first time there are more abortions than live births in the World. Is this good news for anybody?

[BillyB]

In the mid-1990s, the Russian average was 225 terminated pregnancies per 100 births and ninety-eight abortions for every 1,000 women of childbearing age per year--a yearly average of 3.5 million. An estimated one-quarter of maternal fatalities result from abortion procedures.


http://www.photius.com/countries/russia/society/russia_society_abortion.html

Not only are there maternal fatalities resulting from abortion procedures, some women lose their ability to have children and/or gain other health related issues from having an abortion.

[Ooooops]

It looks like I've started a whole new topic while basking on the sun in Thailand.       Ok, I better go and read it then...

[Ooooops]

I have been through three pregnancies, attending lamaze training and assisted in all three deliveries.

Sweet...  Goal achieved...  Seed spread...   Time to move on to the new pastures... 

[Ooooops]

The 'tightrope' we walk is to encourage vigorous debate - the kind that will allow people to express strong opinions and challenge others, while at the same time remaining open to vital ideas expressed by others - all within the bounds of civil discourse.

It is the sort of thing RWD does better than any other site on the 'net - even if it does result in some petty bickering once in a while - which *does* get worn out when it persists.

- Dan

Amen to that!   

[Ooooops]

I never said I am 100% against abortions. I am a reasonable person. A point I have maintained consitently is when it is a man and a woman as in a couple, it should be THEIR decision, not just HERS! I have a major problem with women who about THEIR child without ever consulting her partner.

I agree with you, but only in case when woman and man are truly a COUPLE (I see you like to use capital letters to drive the point home ).   If woman has her doubts then...  well, you already know what happens.

[Ooooops]

I want to make sure before I tell you how much of a focking idiot I think you are.

Very nice.   Perfect example of a gentleman.      Oh, and I've reported you insulting post to the Administration, I hope it's ok with you.   

[Ooooops]

I'm at a loss either to understand what is called traditional for the scions of 3 generation of Soviet life. To work like a horse all her life, mostly alone, raise children - also alone, be deprived of the most things considered natural feminine heriage - and remain feminine, contrive without things, money, opportunity, always considered second best - behind the state's hypocritical spoutings about equality, sheltering of mothers and children, etc. ? Traditional? My pretty plump ass! 

That's why the best selling "traditional" girls are in their 20s   

[Ooooops]

Ok, finished reading this topic...   My opinion hasn't changed - girls are pro-choice and guys are pro life (well, most of them here  ).   Now I have a question to these guys - how often do you see you children from the previous marriage?  How do you participate in their life?   Oh, may be I'm barking up the wrong tree... most of your children already have grandchildren, right?   

[GreginGa]

It looks like I've started a whole new topic while basking on the sun in Thailand.       Ok, I better go and read it then...

So how many hours is the airplane ride from wherever to Bangkok? I have 2 former exchange students that want us to come visit. I figure next fall we might just leave the baby with babushka in Kharkov and go for a few days. I love me some Thai food. I hear everything is so good and cheap. One of my students has a place on the water in Phuket. Maybe we'll get there one day.

[Gtex]

Oooooo0o0o0o0ppppss;

Is it necessary to be rude to all the male members here?  Your comment about us being grandfathers and bad fathers (I am neither) is really unnecessary and the type of gratuitous abuse that ends up provoking the reply you complained about.

You really do seem to enjoy being obnoxious to us (most male members) and it makes me wonder if you are really just another visitor from "antidate"  or some other provocateur.   

Differing opinions are often the norm here; as are also occasionally trolls and other irritants.  Play nice or find another sandbox...

[Admin]

Ok, finished reading this topic...   My opinion hasn't changed - girls are pro-choice and guys are pro life (well, most of them here  ).   Now I have a question to these guys - how often do you see you children from the previous marriage?  How do you participate in their life?   Oh, may be I'm barking up the wrong tree... most of your children already have grandchildren, right?   

A few comments.

Opinions are a difficult thing to change - whether it is one's own opinion, or another's.

The 'theme' of your last few posts reveals a belief that is, I feel, not wholly accurate. My interpretation of that belief is that men are inclined to; (a) spread their seed widely, and (b) lack responsibility for the consequences of that spread. While I suspect there is some instinctive 'truth' to that position, I know far too many men who have primary, or sole, custody of their children to accept the premise as absolute.

The other thing that needs to be considered, IMO, is that our culture still promotes the notion of the man being the primary income-earner. For many, the demands of income generation means the requirement for flexibility in travel and work schedule, which often interferes with full-time parenting duties. In some (maybe many) instances it comes down to - does the father want to work to pay the court-ordered child support (and provide suitably for his children) OR spend more time with parenting duties, thus reducing income levels and creating problems (legal and financial) for himself and his children.

There is not a simple black-and-white answer - IMO.

- Dan

[msmoby_ru]

Ok, finished reading this topic...   My opinion hasn't changed - girls are pro-choice and guys are pro life (well, most of them here  ).   

..Oksana, has that Thai sun and cocktails got anything to do with this "somewhat" sweeping statement

Now I have a question to these guys - how often do you see you children from the previous marriage?  How do you participate in their life?   Oh, may be I'm barking up the wrong tree... most of your children already have grandchildren, right?   

Oksana! $160,000 , numerous court appearances, and physcological tests ( the kids, her and me) and 5 years later I still only get to see my kids when the ex is threatened with contempt of court.. which of course would be damaging to the kids..

I normally enjoy your wit, but this comment was WAY off the sweeping, over-generalisation scale..    Isn't Thailand finding something to stimulate you ?!

(Apologies to OlgaH for any confusion..    )

[Blues Fairy]

I never said I am 100% against abortions. I am a reasonable person. A point I have maintained consitently is when it is a man and a woman as in a couple, it should be THEIR decision, not just HERS! I have a major problem with women who about THEIR child without ever consulting her partner.

I agree with you, but only in case when woman and man are truly a COUPLE (I see you like to use capital letters to drive the point home ).   If woman has her doubts then...  well, you already know what happens.

One question though.  Suppose the woman has consulted with her husband and they haven't arrived to any agreement.  Woman absolutely wants an abortion and man absolutely opposes it.  Both parties have presented equally valid arguments.

Who should have the last word in the matter?