Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Choice is a 'hot potato' issue that demands a discussion by reasonable people. This great debate is not about religous dogma, nor is it about politics or finger pointing.
Many of the debates I watcged in the past were between emotional people who lost sight of the reason to have the debate. I would like to avoid as much angst as possible.
Let me be clear on one point. To my knowledge Catholic doctors will not perform abortions. They will save the life of a child before the y will save the life of a mother. Having said this, the first question is:
At what stage of growth is a fetus fully formed and able to live outside the womb and take nourishment? I've seen blood clots larger than my hand that showed no signs of life. The next question is:
What should we protect? A viable life or a bloody mass?
I am neutral on the subject of abortion but pro-choice on the side of sanitary faciliities and qualified staff for good reason. Forty years ago women who wanted an abortion did one of three things. They used a coat hanger, drank horse urine, or they went to a back alley butcher and risked death from infection. This is what happened to a friend who was a wonderful nurse with a bright future. She died a horrible death from a unsanitary botched proceedure at the age of twenty-eight. My next question is:
In this age of HIV and STD, do we really want to turn back time and riisk sending our sisters, daughters and wives to a butcher who uses unsterile insruments and dirty tables and sheets?
I think it is fair to say most of us know someone who had an abortion. I do not like them, but I would vote pro-choice in a second to keep my daughter from dying a horrible death like my friend. On the other hand I strongly believe in limits. I do not believe in abortion on demand and I abhor partial birth proceedures. I stornly believe choice should be made between an adult woman, her doctor and her conscience in the FIRST trimester or first 90 days. I also believe exceptions could be made on a case by case basis where child rape, underage females, people who are clearly not competent to make a descision, and where the life of the mother should be consdered by the doctor. The last questions are for ladies only.
Should there be limits to abortion? Who would be eligible? Should women be counceled as part of the choice process? Should adoption be stressesd as an alternative choice?
There was an interesting program on N.P.R. (Diane Rehm show, if I remember correctly) about issues of "choice". . . . the womens (patients) choice to choose any available (and legal) care, and the physicians choice to refuse certain kinds of care that he / she believe are morally "wrong". . . it seems that the "agreed upon" outcome, by both the pro choice and the pro life representatives was that physicians and pharmacists that have stong views about perfoming certain procedures or administering certain medications MUST be willing and able to refer the patient to a provider than can and will supply the goods / services. In the case where (for instance in small and or remote communities, where other providers may not exist), only those who can and will perform all legal services should serve in these types of positions. It WAS a remarkably civil debate, given the subject matter, and the often strong feelings that people have regarding these issues.
From a strictly spiritual perspective, I believe that life begins at conception. But from a human perspective, I also acknowledge viable life. That is to say that the life initially created inside of a woman isn't automatically viable.
The abortion debate, particularly by those who share my spiritual and faith belief, has been more distraction than serious concern. There's not been one state that has criminalized abortion. Not even Republican-dominated states like Utah and Idaho, or bible belt states like Alabama and Georgia. They haven't even tried.
Meanwhile, those who are so vocal and vigilant about protecting the life of the newly-conceived, virtually disappear once that child is born (to a mother who likely didn't want him or her in the first place). So much for "life".
Now, would I be happy if 99.99% our society were in favor of banning contraceptive abortion? Yes I would. But I wouldn't even entertain the idea unless and until our society was one in which we loved the newly born as much as we loved the newly conceived.
I have been struggling with the entire issue. I am against abortion in almost all cases. BUT, can any president really change Roe vs. Wade at this point? Bush is against abortion, but in his 8 years he has limited it, but not gotten rid of it. Do we think it can ever really go away?
This issue is a deciding factor for many voters, but should it be?
100% pro-choice here. Except after the 1st trimester.
A fetus is nothing but a glob of goo. It has no soul, no ability to reason, no ability to emote or think. No ability to form a memory. Since a fetus cannot live outside the mother's body, it is nothing more than a mass of cells that is a part of her. A fetus is just as much a living thing as a blade of grass or a fruitfly.
And the mother should be granted unconditional, 100% control over it's destiny.
There was an interesting program on N.P.R. (Diane Rehm show, if I remember correctly) about issues of "choice". . . . the womens (patients) choice to choose any available (and legal) care, and the physicians choice to refuse certain kinds of care that he / she believe are morally "wrong". . . it seems that the "agreed upon" outcome, by both the pro choice and the pro life representatives was that physicians and pharmacists that have stong views about perfoming certain procedures or administering certain medications MUST be willing and able to refer the patient to a provider than can and will supply the goods / services. In the case where (for instance in small and or remote communities, where other providers may not exist), only those who can and will perform all legal services should serve in these types of positions. It WAS a remarkably civil debate, given the subject matter, and the often strong feelings that people have regarding these issues.
I have a little trouble with the bolded part. What if a pro-life dr, nurse or pharm wants to live and make a living in an "underserved" area?
I have a little trouble with the bolded part. What if a pro-life dr, nurse or pharm wants to live and make a living in an "underserved" area?
They can "want" whatever they want! If their job obligates them to serve the entire community, and they are not willing to do that, they are not qualified for the job!
They can "want" whatever they want! If their job obligates them to serve the entire community, and they are not willing to do that, they are not qualified for the job!
This is the side of the abortion issue, the Dr's choice to do or not do abortions, is a side I haven't really explored or even thought about.
First..I am pro choice. While I wouldn't choose to have an abortion myself, I don't believe that I have a right to force that choice onto someone else. I am not extremely "religious" but consider myself more "spiritual". I'm from the belief that everything that happens inyour life happens for a reason and while not everything is pre-determined, there are different avenues your life can go down depending on choices you make for yourself. That being said, all things and people no matter how briefly, that touch your life do so for a reason to teach you something.. although you may not quite know what. And every soul that enters your life does so in an agreement made on a spiritual level (not a concious level). That inlcudes the soul of that unborn child. The purpose of that child may or may not be to actually exist outside of the woman's body, depending on what purpose it was to serve in the parents or others lives. If that soul is not born into the physical, it does not mean that that soul will never be born. Life does not cease to exists as our souls are eternal.
Now as far as the Dr's side of the issue.. I do believe that if it is against what the Dr feels is morally right for him / herself and chooses not to do abortions they shouldn't be forced to do so.. HOWEVER.. in the case mentioned above.. having no other community Dr's available (more prevalent in rural and densley populated areas) SHOULD BY LAW REFER THEM TO SOMEONE THAT CAN AND WILL DO THE PROCEDURE.. So that it is assured that the person they turned down who chose to have one is having one done safely.
Meanwhile, those who are so vocal and vigilant about protecting the life of the newly-conceived, virtually disappear once that child is born (to a mother who likely didn't want him or her in the first place). So much for "life".
This is a very important point, IMO. I do not think we can claim to be pro-life, if all we care about is the life of the unborn child. If we want to claim being pro-life, than we also have to be anti-war, anti-capital punishment, and pro-social welfare.
It seems to me that this issue is not really about principles but a divisive political issue meant to obscure the failings of the political candidate.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
