Posted on November 18 at 3:29 p.m.Suggest removal

"I'm not a woman, but I am a person, so I do get a vote in an issue I see as human rights..."
Actually, what I said was that I think it is important to discuss the issue with men and get a male's perspective because reproduction and children affect them, too. However, when it comes to judging morality, the closest thing men can use to compare (physically) is a tumor or a parasite, which fails to see the physical and emotional changes that happen to a woman's body when she is pregnant. I think that legally, men should not get a vote (just like women shouldn't be voting for or against male circumcision). With a pro-life woman, I would say all the arguments I have said, including the above, because currently, it is mostly men in government who are judging and deciding access to abortion. Men who call women who get abortions "Nazis" are allowed to state their opinion, but it is extremely disingenuous to argue that they understand the whole picture. You can try, but you can't.

"...Why are the other things not viable alternatives?..."
I also said that if a woman wants an abortion, she will get one. There is no alternative. There are ways to help prevent abortion, but to the actual act itself, there is no solution. A consequence of making abortion illegal is more back-alley abortions, so by supporting one you are also pushing for the other, even if you don't want to be.

"I'm not asking to not be challenged..."
However, you seem to be using their disrespect as a reason to further your own cause. And I'll repeat - that is what it SEEMS like you are doing. It may not be your intention. But this article started by calling pro-choicers Nazis, so a little anger in return is not surprising.

On

Posted on November 18 at 3:29 p.m.Suggest removal

"It's not a consequence to teach a moral lesson..."
Yes, sex can lead to pregnancy. Pregnancy does not just go away magically by itself. An abortion is also a consequence, in your argument. Most - almost all - woman do not "want" to get an abortion (so I use that term loosely) - she would rather just not be pregnant. Going through the physical and emotional event that is abortion is a consequence to sex, as well. If you think that the woman should have to continue carrying the fetus, then it becomes a different kind of lesson on consequences, one that puts children in the category of those "I told you so" moments. Especially if you believe that abortion is okay in cases of rape or incest.

"We didn't use to think that black people were persons..."
In this case, there was (and is) considerable biological (not emotional) evidence that black people and white people are not that different. To treat a sentient human like they are less than another based on minor physical traits is not biologically defensible. To compare an independent life form to one that is dependent on another to live is also not biologically sound. I would say again that most women just want to not be pregnant (for various reasons); the fact that the fetus no longer can live is an extremely unfortunate, terrible side effect of that. But while a fetus is alive (science supports this), the fact that it is dependent on another (i.e. not viable) means it is not the same as a civil rights for black people.

I guess I would concede that if there are legitimate arguments for viewing embryos as persons, then that has a place in court. I have yet to hear one. Another fun fact, though: the main arguments behind slavery were supported using the Bible. Seemingly logical, straight-forward, not-open-to-interpretation quotes, with plenty of pseudo-science to back it up.

On

Posted on November 17 at 11:42 p.m.Suggest removal

In regards to sex education, most parents fail to completely inform their kids. According to a study with O/Seventeen magazines and Harris Interactive: "The big news from the survey is the huge disconnect between what mothers are saying and what daughters are hearing. The data shows not only that there's a glaring discrepancy between the two sides' perceptions of how often they've had The Talk (by which we mean talking about having sex or making the decision to have sex)but that the moms may be overestimating how well these chats are going. Only 22 percent of mothers think their daughters are uncomfortable talking to them about sex, while 61 percent of girls say that, in fact, they are. This awkwardness may explain why the actual number of 15- to 18-year-olds in our survey having oral sex (30 percent) is double the number mothers know about, or even suspect—and why 46 percent of girls that age who've had intercourse didn't tell their moms. More disturbing is the prevalence of risky behavior that girls are trying to hide: Seventy-eight percent of surveyed girls who are no longer virgins say they've had sex without using a condom, and 65 percent of them admit they lied about or hid it from their mothers. Most troubling, a sobering 56 percent of girls who are no longer virgins have had sex without any form of birth control: Sixty-six percent of these girls have kept that a secret from Mom. Even among the few girls who had an abortion, many didn't tell." Plus, most parents believe they have had THE TALK with their teens, but less than 35% of teens say their parents have talked with them about (safe) sex.

Sexuality and sex is an important social issue - your knowledge of sex and subsequent practice of sex affects more than just you, just as all children getting a basic education is beneficial to everyone in society. STDs, AIDS, teen pregnancy, etc. are issues that affect all of us, and are therefore as much public responsibility as drug use and prevention.

As to your comment about legalizing heroine, there are ways to prevent the spread of AIDS due to drug use beyond legalizing heroine, such as the highly successful needle exchange program in Washington, DC. The ways to prevent unsafe abortions are to provide cheap birth control options, sex(uality) education, support (financial/emotional/job training/babysitting) for new parents, and legal abortions. There is no alternative in this case - just as being for a war means being for killing/violence, being against abortion means supporting unsafe alternatives.

There is common ground here - both pro-choice and pro-life people should work to lower abortion rates through education and resources. If abortion is still an issue, then perhaps morality can play a role in the debate. Until then, people should be doing all they can to get rid of abortion without sacrificing women's rights or safety.

On

Posted on November 17 at 11:27 p.m.Suggest removal

And to continue:

I love my mother very much, and as such, I would completely understand if she had wanted to abort me. Granted, I wouldn't be alive to make these comments if she had, but then again I wouldn't care about having been aborted, either. I would sacrifice for my mother, and I would never want to force my existence on her. I think that women need to be informed to make the decision that is right for them and the potential person, because if they are not ready to be a mother/don't want to be a mother, then chances are they wouldn't provide the best environment for a fetus to grow in. Pregnancy is a responsibility, and women who aren't ready for it can do a lot of damage to that fetus long past its birth date. As someone dealing with a genetic disorder, I know that at some point, life isn't worth it, and a moral high ground is preserved for the simple fact that YOU need to be able to live with yourself.

I also agree with previous posters that people who are not female can't understand pregnancy. I am all for not judging people based on gender (since there are more differences within the sexes than between them), but this is not a character/personality judgment, but a biological one. Gender may not determine who you are as a person or your abilities or your intelligence, but it does prevent me from knowing what circumcision feels like, what it is like to have external genitalia, or how not being able to fully control your reproductive success (instead depending on a woman to provide the environment for the child), just as it prevents you from understanding menstruation, pregnancy, and birth. While I may have an opinion about circumcision, I do not believe that I should get a vote in the end, because I don't know what it is like. Getting a male perspective on reproduction and abortion is important, but in the end, I do not think men get a vote.

One thing I noticed in TheJeff's posts that I wasn't going to mention (but couldn't resist when I saw his "I'm not a 'grammar Nazi'" comment) was the fact that "coarse" and "course" are not the same words. "Coarse" is an adjective, not used in the "of course" phrase. And respecting your opinion does not mean challenging your viewpoint. Besides, the author compares abortion to the Holocaust, suggesting that anyone who is pro-choice is comparable to the Nazis. Does that not seem disrespectful to you?

On

Posted on November 17 at 11:26 p.m.Suggest removal

I think that pro-lifers above forget two things:

1) Children should never be thought of as "consequences" to teach someone a lesson, they should be loved and wanted. Forcing women to carry an unwanted fetus to term so that people face the consequences of their actions is, in my opinion, demeaning to those children.

2) If you were in a car accident and severely injured the other party, no law could make you donate an organ or use your body as life support. While such a situation might result in a involuntary manslaughter conviction, I can think of no one who would argue that you MUST donate your body to support someone else (even though you made the decision to get in the car, to drive recklessly, etc.). And after this point, it's a moral/religious issue as to whether a fetus is an equal person. However the law defines the separation between church and state, so those arguments about when human life/personhood begins have no place in courts. No pro-choicer forces abortion on a pro-lifer, so no pro-lifer should force his/her beliefs on another. After all, many of those who claim to be "for life" supported the Iraq war, where many sentient, innocent individuals were killed by our actions. And I've always found it confusing that people put a bunch of cells above smart, social creatures like whales and pigs just because those cells have human DNA. What is it about those nonspecific, unfeeling group of cells that deserves what other sentient creatures (human and non-human) do not?

On