Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate

[lester1/2jr]

If it reduces the number of abortions, I'm for it.

bombing abortion clinics on a regular basis would probably reduce the number of abortions.


giving everyone birth control after the age of 12 would also.

My wife was born to a 16 year old unwed mother in 1964.  Had she been conceived a decade later, I imagine there are very good odds that her life would have ended in a medical waste container before she ever got to draw her first breath.

she might also have never been conceived either do to birth control or having never met the father at wherever they met.

[Leah]

Here I present to you a song about abortion, and leaves the listener to decide what side he/she is on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-vQ_VsTkn0&feature=plcp&context=C4396feeVDvjVQa1PpcFMUF-sCes_WQueIii5wlEpyW_q-w4AmWME%3D

honestly, it's up to them, but there has to be strict rules to go with it, like say she was raped or the guy who had sex with her poked a hole in his condom without her knowing. see, that I can see, however, the child could go to the family relatives. This debate is so confusing, and asks the question on who's to blame. personally, I think it's the guys fault.

[Chainsawmidget]

Still, what's wrong with carrying the child to term, then putting him or her up for adoption?

Nine months of suffering, pain, self pity, hatred, doctors appointments, and medical bills? 

It is a choice whether or not to engage in sexual activity.  It is a choice whether or not to marry.  It is a choice whether or not to use contraception.

Sometimes the choice of whether to not engage in sexual activity is unfortunately taken out of a person's hands and contraceptives aren't 100% effective all the time. 

 

[indianasmith]

Good point.  However, those two choices could eliminate about 90% of all abortions if responsible exercised.

I just never understood the logic of; "I don't want this baby, so I will kill it."

Why is that a valid decision?

[Menard]

I just never understood the logic of; "I don't want this baby, so I will kill it."

Why is that a valid decision?

And you've been faced with having to carry a pregnancy to term or not...how many times in you life, Indy?

[indianasmith]

Before or after my surgery?

I get it, Menard.
But there is still a tiny heart beating that is being snuffed out forever.
I understand the historical abuse and oppression of women; I believe in equal pay for
equal work, and full civil and social equality.

But snuffing out a child's life is just wrong.  I can never get past that.

[Flick James]

Indy and Menard,

The two of you have just demonstrated with stark clarity why this debate will likely never be resolved.

[indianasmith]

True that.
But hey - at least we're TALKING!

[Flick James]

True that.
But hey - at least we're TALKING!

"Trut that?" Did you just say "true that" Indy? My, you are getting hip, aren't you?



Come on, kick some freestyle, Indy. I'll bust my beatbox skillz.

[Menard]

Before or after my surgery?

I get it, Menard.

I seriously doubt that, Indy.

My last reply was after several things I typed and deleted; trying to come up with a civil way to reply to a hugely insensitive comment.

"I don't want this baby, so I will kill it."

Do you honestly think a decision to have an abortion is that simple?

That is a decision as men that none of us will ever have to face, and no decision in life, categorically, will be any tougher than that. As men, we are pussies when it comes to having to face a hard decision in life compared to women, and yet we gather around the fire in our cave and talk tough and denigrate women as though they are something less than us. Yet, I've never met a man tougher than the women I know.

Love ya babe, but hey...that was an insensitive thing to say, and I hope you got some negative karma for that (I won't give negative karma myself as it seems hypocritical since I can't be given any).

[indianasmith]

I think we unnecessarily complicate things sometimes. 
No, I'm not a woman.  Never have been, never will be.
But just because I was born horned instead of cloven doesn't mean I'm not allowed to have an opinion.
Reproductive issues are enormously complicated, but in the end, abortion boils down to the termination of
a human life.  You can attach all kinds of philosophical and gender relational and political and religious significance
to it, but at the end of the day, two beating hearts go into the abortion clinic and one comes out. 

Some people are OK with that, some are ambiguous about it, and some believe it is a wrong that can never be made right, no matter how much rhetoric you wrap it in.

That's where I fall.

I actually respect your position - but I can never agree with it.

[AndyC]

The two of you have just demonstrated with stark clarity why this debate will likely never be resolved.

Very hard to settle any debate that won't stay focused. Interesting to watch this thread spontaneously turn into a debate about feminism, religion or politics, even in spite of some admirable efforts to discuss abortion.

Kind of disappointing, too. I'd love to get into the discussion this thread occasionally tries to be. A discussion about the relative value of human lives, the responsible use of a medical procedure, personal accountability, the pros and cons of various approaches, and how to fairly balance the needs of everyone concerned. A discussion that doesn't go off the rails every second post, where opinions can be expressed both respectfully and without hedging or overly qualifying everything. A discussion that actually progresses, rather than restate the same points over and over.

But that just ain't gonna happen.

[Menard]

The two of you have just demonstrated with stark clarity why this debate will likely never be resolved.

Very hard to settle any debate that won't stay focused. Interesting to watch this thread spontaneously turn into a debate about feminism, religion or politics, even in spite of some admirable efforts to discuss abortion.

And how do you propose to have a discussion about mandating a procedure for women without discussing women's rights? Or being that the right to life side validates their arguments against abortion based on their interpretation of their religious texts, then how do you have the discussion without religion? And being that we are talking about proposed legislation, how do you have the discussion without talking about politics?

And if I remember correctly, weren't you one involved in a discussion in this thread about how moderate you are....and precisely what does that have to do with the discussion at hand?

I'll just quote from a book of some of your all's religion: (John 8:7 [RSV])

Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone...

Just sayin' 

[AndyC]

The two of you have just demonstrated with stark clarity why this debate will likely never be resolved.

Very hard to settle any debate that won't stay focused. Interesting to watch this thread spontaneously turn into a debate about feminism, religion or politics, even in spite of some admirable efforts to discuss abortion.

And how do you propose to have a discussion about mandating a procedure for women without discussing women's rights? Or being that the right to life side validates their arguments against abortion based on their interpretation of their religious texts, then how do you have the discussion without religion? And being that we are talking about proposed legislation, how do you have the discussion without talking about politics?

Exactly why this is a futile discussion. People are trying to argue about three or more issues at once, with each person seeing something different as the central issue. Each is saying something that, for him, is the most important thing to consider, in an effort to convince people who think something else is more significant. It's apples and oranges. To me, the only possible way to have any kind of meaningful dialogue is to accept that other people are seeing the issue differently, and that does not necessarily make them wrong. We know all the feminist, religious and political arguments, and they need no repeating. Is it possible to strip all of that away, and see if there isn't some common ground on which to talk? Or even just discuss it from one point of view at a time?

And I never said I was moderate. I said I go both ways (at least politically). To me, a completely moderate position can be as bad or worse than an extreme one.

[Menard]

Is it possible to strip all of that away, and see if there isn't some common ground on which to talk? Or even just discuss it from one point of view at a time?

There would be no discussion if there were no sides, no issues. If there is common ground, then there is no issue. Literally, where is the common ground in a yes or no, for or against debate?

I said I go both ways

And I never said I was moderate. I said I go both ways (at least politically). To me, a completely moderate position can be as bad or worse than an extreme one.

Talk about apples and oranges. So, you're not a moderate, you just go both way politically?