Abortion Issues

[steviej]

Whether abortion is acceptable or unacceptable doesn't matter. It is impossible to make it illegal, and unenforcable anyway. What are we proposing to do - divert a huge percentage of our limited justice enforcement resources to hunting down doctors and their female patients, arresting them, holding them in jail, tieing up scarce courtroom time, jury time, fill up prisons with women and doctors, probation resourcesl, etc.. on and on?? That is just insane. And impossible. And a ridiculous diversion and waster of resource. The argument is academic with no practical outcome.

[roykirk]

Same thing I would say about rabid anti-abortionist who is first of all is a rabid anti-humanist.

Oh, pro-life men, tell us how many of you, great humanist, are married to a woman with the terrible birth defects to make her the happiest woman in the world.

 

I love a woman that can not only trade punches, but can fillet open the occasional nose.  I swear, if I wasn't already taken...   

[Ronnie]

One of my nieces has a birth defect- her right arm is paralyzed due to severing of a nerve when the obstetrician pulled too hard on her head.
She married to a great man who could have easily had a physically perfect woman.

Having one leg didn't stop Heather Mills from snookering a wealthy pop idol and pocketing $30k per day for 5 years for her sacrifice in marrying Paul McCartney.

Missing leg, paralyzed arm...  I'm hearing that if these conditions had existed before the 3rd trimester, these ladies would have been better off aborted.   Do you always agree with Paul McCartney or is this a first?

Actually Olga, I see you wear glasses.  I guess defective vision didn't show up on the sonogram.. Whew!  Lucky for you!

[Admin]

A point of perspective.

Abortion is a 'lightning rod' issue with strong feelings on both sides (all sides?) of the argument. Often, in cases such as this, participants need to simply respect the other party's feelings and simply agree to disagree when it becomes clear there is no productive outcome imminent. So long as everyone is civil and offering/accepting learning points, the exchange is productive.

In terms of the relevance to RWD, there seems enough disparity in terms of incidence rates and possibly cultural sensitivity, that it is relevant to the exchange (civil) here.

- Dan

[GreginGa]

Quite frankly Dan I cant see where abortion has anything to do with finding a Russian or Ukrainian wife. People who might actually have questions or concerns about this process might come here,take one look and say "just another political rant website". Like I said you guys totally screwed up a great thread started by Ken.

[Taz]

I concur with Greg. If you want to keep this thread I'd suggest moving it to the off-topic forum. Quite honestly I get tired of all the attacks on people here and it is greatly reducing my participation and my desire to recommend the site to others. I find myself frequently going to other sites than come here and listen to strident abortionists. On the issue I am more balanced than most but I get tired of all the bickering.

[OlgaH]

Ronnie,

you know what terrible birth defects I'm talking about, but probably you wear glasses... for purpose otherwise you would read the article that I have posted.   

[roykirk]

I concur with Greg. If you want to keep this thread I'd suggest moving it to the off-topic forum. Quite honestly I get tired of all the attacks on people here and it is greatly reducing my participation and my desire to recommend the site to others. I find myself frequently going to other sites than come here and listen to strident abortionists. On the issue I am more balanced than most but I get tired of all the bickering.

Not all pro-choice people believe in abortion.  I dated a woman who was pro-choice, but personally didn't believe in it.  On the other hand, all strident anti-choicers believe in taking away choice from women.  They're just as strident and I don't care to listen to them.  So Admin should move it wherever he wants or lock it.  Doesn't matter to me.

[Admin]

Not all pro-choice people believe in abortion.  I dated a woman who was pro-choice, but personally didn't believe in it.  On the other hand, all strident anti-choicers believe in taking away choice from women.  They're just as strident and I don't care to listen to them.  So Admin should move it wherever he wants or lock it. Doesn't matter to me.

The other alternative is to NOT move it or lock it.

RWD is largely self-moderating - and that's the way it should be. When topics venture too far afield, our more mature and responsible members guide things so that they 'stay within the banks.' For such a volatile topic, for the most part, the exchange has been a reasonable one.

The other reason for not intervening is - consider how it is that ideas are exchanged. If everyone had exactly the same opinions, it would make for a lot of glad-handing and high-fives, but not much in the way of exploring boundaries and opening minds.

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

[OlgaH]

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"

[Taz]

Olga- you are making very broad statements here that don't apply to all pro-life humanists. I personally am more pro-life than pro-choice. I feel abortion is appropriate in many instances though but NOT as a form of birth control. At the same time I am not for captial punishment except in extreme circumstances so my views are pretty consistent.

Many would argue that abortion is in fact murder. At some given point in the fetal development I would tend to agree. At some point you have to have a legal definition of life. What in fact constitutes life? Can we define it by what is the opposite of death? Where there is a major inconsistency in US law is in respect to murder.

For example, if a woman "murder" her 3 month old unborn child it is called abortion and no criminal repercussions or charges will be filed. If a criminal were to kill her and that same 3 month old unborn child he would typically be charged with 2 counts of murder. I don't think you should be able to have it both ways. In the first situation it was considered abortion so reasonably the second could be considered just one count of murder and one abortion.

I personally would encourage people to lay off the person attacks. It does nothing to encourage people to come to these forums or to participate.

[OlgaH]

Taz,

I also do not support the idea of abortion as a birth control. But there are some circumstances when abortion should be done or even must be done. And woman who decides to make abortion has her reasons. To keep fetus or make abortion is decision and right of a woman or a couple (man and woman) , but it is not a right of a strange person.   

[Taz]

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.

Nor do I consider the right of a strange person but then when is taking someone's life a "right". In the USA we have a limited number of enumerated rights. The rest are privileges.

Sometimes it is best to see arguments in their extreme situations. Why limit abortion to just unborn children? For example why couldn't there be an option to kill your child up through 5 years old if they come down with any defects in that period? I am not asking this of any one person here. I am against taking a life just because it is inconvenient for a woman. I believe to kill another human should only be done under extreme circumstances such as war, to save the lives of many such as a police officer killing a criminal, etc. Too often women have an abortion because it might interfere with their career or is at a bad timein their lives, etc.

My children didn't exactly come at the ideal time in my life. My wife and I never once considered an abortion. Of course we had to make sacrifices but it was worth it. I have been blessed with incredibly gifted children and wouldn't change it for anything.

I know women that went through abortions as well and the emotional and physical toll was quite hard on them. There are no easy answers to this topic and people tend to be incredibly emotional on either side. I tend to be more in the middle but strongly believe there should be men's rights in this entire debate. It isn't all about women. Men have feelings and emotions too. Emotional suffering can be as debilitating as physical pain. That isn't to say that physical pain isn't great but I know I've suffered far worse physical pain in my life than 99% of the women will during childbirth.

[steviej]

I agree with Taz - this really has no business being featured on the "Russian Women Discussion" forum. Hasn't everyone already heard all the cr*p on both sides of this argument for 30 years already? There must be a million other abortion forums scattered around the internet anyway.

[mendeleyev]

You don't want to listen because you don't care

Olga my dear friend, this is a tired and worn, not to mention untrue argument.  Some of the most compassionate and giving people I know are pro life.  It certainly takes more effort to care for the kind of child you mention than to throw it away because of imperfections.

Pro-life humanists don't care about lives of these children

Are you sure?  How do you know?   

As a parent of a "less than perfectly formed child" it will be my great honour to see her married in mid August despite the many challenges she has faced in life.

[OlgaH]

I am against taking a life just because it is inconvenient for a woman. I believe to kill another human should only be done under extreme circumstances such as war, to save the lives of many such as a police officer killing a criminal, etc. Too often women have an abortion because it might interfere with their career or is at a bad time in their lives, etc.

I agree about "to kill another human only under extreme circumstances". But what is definition of human? Here I agree with Professor Fletcher: "The fact that a biological organism functions biologically does not mean that it is a human being".

War as extreme circumstances? War is a terrible circumstance that should not happen in the humane world. As Russian writer Vasily Grossman wrote in one of his novel that "all people must apologize to a mother who lost her son in the war"

A pregnant woman is not a mother yet.

Bad time in a woman's life?

There are some social circumstances in Russian law about abortion that allow a woman to make abortion until 22 weeks of pregnancy:

1. 1-2 group invalidity  of her husband
2. Death of a woman's husband during her pregnancy
3. Imprisonment of a woman or her husband
4. Woman or her husband unemployed
5. In the presence of Decree about deprivation of parental rights or restriction on the parental rights.
6. Woman is not married
7. Divorce during pregnancy
8. Pregnancy because of rape
9. Woman (or family) has no lodging
10. Woman has status of refugee or forced migrant
11. In the presence of many children in family (3 or more)
12. In the presence of disabled child in family
13. Level of income is lower than average.   

[OlgaH]

Are you sure?  How do you know?   

Mendeleyev, did you open the link and see the photos of that children? They don't live. They are existing  and slowly die in pain . In my opinion it would be more humane if their mothers made abortion.

About Mongolians disease:

The sanitarium, he said contains no oxygen. The children are given no inoculations against childhood diseases, unless parents insist. "There are churches on all sides of me," he said. "Every one of these ministers agrees with me that it would not be moral, or serving God's will, to prolong these lives."
http://www.altonweb.com/cs/downsyndrome/index.htm?page=fletcher.html

[mendeleyev]

My wonderful and talented friend Olga,

My point was in regards to your blanket statement that pro-life people don't care about children.  Surely you are aware that a very large percentage of "evangelical pro-life Christians" (of which I am not) are those who adopt special children from Russia, Ukriane and Moldova.

You may not like their beliefs but lets be honest in our characterizations of others. That particular belief system also produces some of the most consistent giving to charity in the USA as well, often outpacing other groups by far, an unusual feat since most come from middle class backgrounds rather than from upper strata wealth.

[Ronnie]

To those who would suggest that the issue of abortion has nothing to do with a discussion of RW I would suggest that there is a strong connection you may be overlooking or unaware of. 

Look at Olga's list.  It contains every justification imaginable for abortion.  If you date and marry an RW, there is a probability she has had at least one abortion.  Many have had several.  The psychological impact on the woman and her sense of self-esteem can be greatly and negatively impacted. 

I realize that there are those who have had abortions and have not been affected.  My concern is that a lack of remorse may be an indication of something very detrimental to a relationship such as an underlying lack of conscience.  Lack of conscience will affect a woman's sincerity, truthfulness and general integrity...not to mention fidelity. 

My sweet wife's Ukrainian priest told her that abortion was equivalent to murder...the greatest sin of all and is unforgivable.  She asked me what I thought.  I told her that I thought no priest can judge or speak for God and only God can know what's in the heart of a woman at the time she makes the decision. 

Given the choice of two women, each of which have had abortions, I prefer the one who feels remorse to the one who does not.  Such statements as the one made by the Ukrainian priest are probably more responsible for a woman's denying the existence of God and turning to Atheism than any other factor. 

A rejection of his church's tenets was what led Richard Dawkins, the most rabid Atheist today, to write his God Illusion propaganda.  The choice between Atheism or embracing organized religious tenets that don't make sense, is a false choice.  There is middle ground, and it's that ground that I've found to be the most firm.

Just as we may oppose capital punishment on the real possibility the condemned man may have been wrongfully convicted, we should also consider the possibility we are in error to suggest that a fetus is not a human being.  Decisions made without absolute information should be made on the side of caution in both instances.

[Jet]

I am totally with you regarding those who would choose to use abortion as a means of birth control because they were too careless or lazy to think about the ramifications of their actions beforehand

Jet,
At the heart of my argument is disgust and disappointment with men and women who make decisions with only near-term considerations to guide them.  Why do so many women who have abortions regret having done so years later?  Because they realize they were not thinking beyond that day, that hour when they made the decision to abort. 

I guess my point was that for *some* near-term considerations were even shorter sighted than "that day, that hour when they made the decision to abort". Wienerin replied to my comment by saying:

Again, who is to judge and to decide? And we aren't talking exactly about this. Was she|he careless? Were they naive? Did the condom manufacturer goof, etc., etc. - it doesn't matter.

My contention is that I know of a NUMBER of women, both American and Russian who's abortion count is well into double digits. Nobody is so so naive or unlucky to have the same result a dozen or more times in a row, and whether Weinerin thinks I have the authority to judge or not, I do - others do too  :noidea:

[Gtex]

Congratulations on this most happy event!  I am sure it will be one of the happiest days in the lives of many people. 
Men are quick to have opinions, so are women; many (most?) cases are self serving.  It is only genuine and actual experience that informs and expands understanding. 
There is no ones opinion to correct here; we are all entitled to our views.  Morality can not be legislated, only appeals to the higher nature of individuals can change minds or introduce the tolerance of understanding. 
Laws are laws and what the "majority" thinks will ultimately become the law and then we will see where that leads.  We know where the current thought and standard has deposited us, it is reflected in the comments here, and some outcomes in FSU society.   The contentiousness of this issue is not exhausted and I doubt ever will. Certainly it is an issue to be decided by those effected; they learn from their mistakes (we hope), or maybe they did not make a mistake... I have seen both sides and know my future actions.
By the way, your blog is an excellent source and I enjoy where it has led. 

[deccie]

Why is it some here seem to care so much about a child up until the event up and to birth and so little afterwards?

This world tolerates children dying of preventable disease every day.

How many thousands of children die every single day?

This world tolerates children living in poverty and malnourishment. In abuse and poverty. To suffer disease and neglect.

Why is it one event is intolerable to some (abortion) and the other not?

[GreginGa]

Ronnie I could care less about Olga's list. For you to say that if you date a RW/UW the probability that she has had an abortion ,maybe more than one is absolutely insane. I know you've always had a huge opinion,but this is crazy to make such a blanket statement regarding women from there. I'm not an advocate for abortion all all. I certainly think it is wrong,but I would not want you on my side when it comes to debating the issue.

[Misha]

Nobody is so so naive or unlucky to have the same result a dozen or more times in a row, and whether Weinerin thinks I have the authority to judge or not, I do - others do too  :noidea:

My wife and I were talking about this the other day. She was always a bit shocked to learn how many of her friends did not bother with any form of birth control and did not tell their boyfriends or lovers to wear a condom. She could not understand how they could act so irresponsibly given not only the risk of pregnancy, but also all STD's that were epidemic in Russia.

[OlgaH]

The humanist view

The current law is permissive: it does not impose abortion on anyone who does not want one or want to perform one. So even within the law, individuals have to make moral choices. How do humanists pick their way between these conflicting ideas? Humanists value life and value happiness and personal choice, and many actively campaigned for legalised abortion in the 1960s. Although humanists do not think all life is "sacred" they do respect life, and much in this debate hinges on when one thinks human life begins. Humanists tend to think that a foetus does not become a person, with its own feelings and rights, until well after conception.

Because humanists take happiness and suffering into consideration, they are usually more concerned with the quality of life than the right to life, if the two come into conflict. The probable quality of life of the baby, the woman, rights and wishes of the father and the rest of the family, and the doctors and nurses involved, would all have to be given due weight. There is plenty of room for debate about how much weight each individual should have, but most humanists would probably put the interests of the woman first, since she would have to complete the pregnancy and probably care for the baby, whose happiness would largely depend on hers. She also exists already with other responsibilities and rights and feelings that can be taken into account - unlike those of the unborn foetus which cannot be so surely ascertained.

Of course all possible options should be explored and decisions should be informed ones. Adoption of the unwanted baby might be the best solution in some cases, or on reflection a woman might decide that she could look after a sick or disabled child. Or she might decide that she cannot offer this child a life worth living and abortion is the better choice. She will need to consider the long-term effects as well as the immediate ones. It is unlikely to be an easy decision, and requiring an abortion is a situation that most women would prefer to avoid.

For society as a whole, as well as for the children themselves, the it is better if every child is a wanted child. However, abortion is not the best way of avoiding unwanted children, and improved sex education, easily available contraception, and better education and opportunities for young women, can all help to reduce the number of abortions. But as long as abortion is needed as a last resort, most humanists would agree that society should provide safe legal facilities. The alternatives, which would inevitably include illegal abortions, are far worse.

British Humanist Association.
http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentViewArticle.asp?article=1223