Why did you become Pro-life or Pro-choice?

What influenced your views? Has your mind ever changed on this subject?

Admin wrote:

What influenced your views?

I think having been conceived from rape dominates my views on abortion. Virtually all abortions result from men treating women and children as disposable. We might be able to reduce the incidence using contraception and other methods, but fundamentally abortion is about male irresponsibility and society's refusal to hold these men accountable.

Quote :

Has your mind ever changed on this subject?

Not on the core principles. I have fluctuated on whether early abortions should be legal (at least to obtain once a woman is pregnant) and on strategy issues. Moreover, my opinions have shifted based on new scientific information being learned.

NorthStar wrote:

Admin wrote:

What influenced your views?

I think having been conceived from rape dominates my views on abortion.

I didn't realize this. You should tell the people at girlnation, so they can see why you have an interest in the subject of rape.

Quote :

Virtually all abortions result from men treating women and children as disposable. We might be able to reduce the incidence using contraception and other methods, but fundamentally abortion is about male irresponsibility and society's refusal to hold these men accountable.

Quote :

Has your mind ever changed on this subject?

Not on the core principles. I have fluctuated on whether early abortions should be legal (at least to obtain once a woman is pregnant) and on strategy issues. Moreover, my opinions have shifted based on new scientific information being learned.

What scientific information is this and when was it learned?

futureshock wrote:

Quote :

Not on the core principles. I have fluctuated on whether early abortions should be legal (at least to obtain once a woman is pregnant) and on strategy issues. Moreover, my opinions have shifted based on new scientific information being learned.

What scientific information is this and when was it learned?

It would include the following.

1. Studies on when fetal brainwaves commence. I have little regard for Eileen, but the following web page is very good.

http://eileen.250x.com/Main/Einstein/Brain_Waves.htm

2. Research on when fetal sentience commences.

3. Research on the effectiveness of contraception. I was particularly struck by the wide variability in levels of effectiveness of different forms of contraception. Anyone who is not mindlessly controlled by dogma needs to conclude that a) Implanon is more effective than NFP and b) condoms are worse than abstinence.

4. Information about premature infant survival rates.

5. Research showing a correlation between aggressive enforcement of child support and lowered rates of unwed births.

6. Polls showing strong opposition to laws against early abortions but support for laws against late abortions

7. Research on when and why women get abortions.

8. Research on why women get abortions late in pregnancy.

9. Research on which anti-abortion efforts would win majority support.

I have also been influenced by the following discoveries.

10. Information about barriers to using adoption as an alternative to abortion.

11. Discrimination against pregnant women.

I have also have been amazed by what I discovered when I actually sat down and started reading Roe v. Wade and other court decisions on abortion. I get the feeling that a) only a few people in the country have ever actually read the decisions and b) if more people read them the debate on abortion would be very different.

NorthStar wrote:

futureshock wrote:

Quote :

Not on the core principles. I have fluctuated on whether early abortions should be legal (at least to obtain once a woman is pregnant) and on strategy issues. Moreover, my opinions have shifted based on new scientific information being learned.

What scientific information is this and when was it learned?

It would include the following.

1. Studies on when fetal brainwaves commence. I have little regard for Eileen, but the following web page is very good.

http://eileen.250x.com/Main/Einstein/Brain_Waves.htm

2. Research on when fetal sentience commences.

3. Research on the effectiveness of contraception. I was particularly struck by the wide variability in levels of effectiveness of different forms of contraception. Anyone who is not mindlessly controlled by dogma needs to conclude that a) Implanon is more effective than NFP and b) condoms are worse than abstinence.

What is Implanon?

Quote :

4. Information about premature infant survival rates.

5. Research showing a correlation between aggressive enforcement of child support and lowered rates of unwed births.

6. Polls showing strong opposition to laws against early abortions but support for laws against late abortions

What is your definition of late abortion?

Quote :

7. Research on when and why women get abortions.

8. Research on why women get abortions late in pregnancy.

9. Research on which anti-abortion efforts would win majority support.

I have also been influenced by the following discoveries.

10. Information about barriers to using adoption as an alternative to abortion.

11. Discrimination against pregnant women.

I have also have been amazed by what I discovered when I actually sat down and started reading Roe v. Wade and other court decisions on abortion. I get the feeling that a) only a few people in the country have ever actually read the decisions and b) if more people read them the debate on abortion would be very different.

How so?

P.S. Thanks for the thorough answer to my previous post.

futureshock wrote:

What is Implanon?

It is an implantable form of contraception similar to Norplant but it only uses one rod and has some other desirable improvements. I believe that Implanon has the potential to reduce the number of abortions substantially because it is extremely effective, relatively low cost, and does not have many of the limitations that other forms of contraception possess. All other forms of contraception, as far as I am concerned, have such problematic shortcomings that they are almost useless for the purpose of reducing the number of abortions. For example, all barrier methods and withdrawal are so absurdly error-prone that they are are counterproductive. Oral contraceptives might not be counterproductive but have such high failure rates that they are not very useful. Depo-Provera is marginally effective but causes osteoporosis and has other strong side effects. IUDs cannot be used by women who have not given birth to a child- which includes many of the women who get abortions. Sterilization is generally permanent and therefore of limited value to women who want to keep their future child-bearing options open.

Quote :

What is your definition of late abortion?

Second-trimester and third-trimester.

http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/major_proposals_detail.cfm?issue_type=abortion&list=3

Quote :

Quote :

I have also have been amazed by what I discovered when I actually sat down and started reading Roe v. Wade and other court decisions on abortion. I get the feeling that a) only a few people in the country have ever actually read the decisions and b) if more people read them the debate on abortion would be very different.

How so?

There are many ways that the ignorance manifests itself, but two spring to mind. First is the obvious- the abortion industry has been able to easily use their willing lapdogs in the media to spread disinformation about Roe v. Wade. As a result, the public wrongly believes that the decisions reflect a sensible compromise based on legal principles rather than the imposition of Jewish and secular values on a mostly Christian and religious nation that it actually represents. The ignorance is also damaging because it allows political (Republican) and religious (Catholic and evangelical) forces to manipulate anti-abortion sentiment to their own ends and thus diverting the movement from adopting the most effective strategies for actually reducing the number of abortions. Roe has some gaping weaknesses that could easily be exploited but the pro-life movement is too busy pursuing ineffective strategies based on flawed analyses to even recognize those weaknesses.

NorthStar wrote:

futureshock wrote:

What is Implanon?

It is an implantable form of contraception similar to Norplant but it only uses one rod and has some other desirable improvements. I believe that Implanon has the potential to reduce the number of abortions substantially because it is extremely effective, relatively low cost, and does not have many of the limitations that other forms of contraception possess. All other forms of contraception, as far as I am concerned, have such problematic shortcomings that they are almost useless for the purpose of reducing the number of abortions. For example, all barrier methods and withdrawal are so absurdly error-prone that they are are counterproductive. Oral contraceptives might not be counterproductive but have such high failure rates that they are not very useful. Depo-Provera is marginally effective but causes osteoporosis and has other strong side effects. IUDs cannot be used by women who have not given birth to a child- which includes many of the women who get abortions. Sterilization is generally permanent and therefore of limited value to women who want to keep their future child-bearing options open.

Sounds like great form of contraception.

Quote :

Quote :

What is your definition of late abortion?

Second-trimester and third-trimester.

http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/major_proposals_detail.cfm?issue_type=abortion&list=3

Quote :

Quote :

I have also have been amazed by what I discovered when I actually sat down and started reading Roe v. Wade and other court decisions on abortion. I get the feeling that a) only a few people in the country have ever actually read the decisions and b) if more people read them the debate on abortion would be very different.

How so?

There are many ways that the ignorance manifests itself, but two spring to mind. First is the obvious- the abortion industry has been able to easily use their willing lapdogs in the media to spread disinformation about Roe v. Wade. As a result, the public wrongly believes that the decisions reflect a sensible compromise based on legal principles rather than the imposition of Jewish and secular values on a mostly Christian and religious nation that it actually represents. The ignorance is also damaging because it allows political (Republican) and religious (Catholic and evangelical) forces to manipulate anti-abortion sentiment to their own ends and thus diverting the movement from adopting the most effective strategies for actually reducing the number of abortions. Roe has some gaping weaknesses that could easily be exploited but the pro-life movement is too busy pursuing ineffective strategies based on flawed analyses to even recognize those weaknesses.

Why should the government be involved in the imposition of ANY religious values? Just because abortion is legal does not mean anyone is FORCED to abort. Everyone is free to follow their own personal value system and decide for themselves. I don't know how much more you could want.

futureshock wrote:

Why should the government be involved in the imposition of ANY religious values?

I do not favor the imposition of religious values in the way that Roe v. Wade did so.

Roe actually cited Jewish ideology as a justification for its holding. I quote the following passage at length for completeness.

"Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

It should be sufficient to note briefly the wide divergence of thinking on this most sensitive and difficult question. There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth. This was the belief of the Stoics. 56 It appears to be the predominant, though not the unanimous, attitude of the Jewish faith. 57 It may be taken to represent also the position of a large segment of the Protestant community, insofar as that can be ascertained; organized groups that have taken a formal position on the abortion issue have generally regarded abortion as a matter for the conscience of the individual and her family. 58 As we have noted, the common law found greater significance in quickening. Physicians and their scientific colleagues have regarded that event with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes "viable," that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. 59 Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks. 60 The Aristotelian theory of "mediate animation," that held sway throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance in Europe, continued to be official Roman Catholic dogma until the 19th century, despite opposition to this "ensoulment" theory from those in the Church who would recognize the existence of life from [410 U.S. 113, 161] the moment of conception. 61 The latter is now, of course, the official belief of the Catholic Church. As one brief amicus discloses, this is a view strongly held by many non-Catholics as well, and by many physicians. Substantial problems for precise definition of this view are posed, however, by new embryological data that purport to indicate that conception is a "process" over time, rather than an event, and by new medical techniques such as menstrual extraction, the "morning-after" pill, implantation of embryos, artificial insemination, and even artificial wombs. 62

In areas other than criminal abortion, the law has been reluctant to endorse any theory that life, as we recognize it, begins before live birth or to accord legal rights to the unborn except in narrowly defined situations and except when the rights are contingent upon live birth. For example, the traditional rule of tort law denied recovery for prenatal injuries even though the child was born alive. 63 That rule has been changed in almost every jurisdiction. In most States, recovery is said to be permitted only if the fetus was viable, or at least quick, when the injuries were sustained, though few [410 U.S. 113, 162] courts have squarely so held. 64 In a recent development, generally opposed by the commentators, some States permit the parents of a stillborn child to maintain an action for wrongful death because of prenatal injuries. 65 Such an action, however, would appear to be one to vindicate the parents' interest and is thus consistent with the view that the fetus, at most, represents only the potentiality of life. Similarly, unborn children have been recognized as acquiring rights or interests by way of inheritance or other devolution of property, and have been represented by guardians ad litem. 66 Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense."

All of the other counter-arguments against this argument by Texas were either beside the point, have been proven incorrect since, or have become obsolete as a result of events since the decision was issued. The entire argument for Roe v. Wade, then, reduces to the following paraphrase: abortion should be legal through viability for any reason or no reason because Jews think that life begins at birth."

While some arguments against abortion have been inspired or encouraged by religious thinking or organizations, I do not favor using religion, per se, as a rationale for any public policy.

Quote :

Just because abortion is legal does not mean anyone is FORCED to abort. Everyone is free to follow their own personal value system and decide for themselves. I don't know how much more you could want.

How about a just, prosperous, and safe society where all people have the right to pursue happiness? Abortion is an intrinsic evil that leads to other evils and is therefore contrary to the welfare of society.

It says

Quote :

56 It appears to be the predominant, though not the unanimous, attitude of the Jewish faith. 57 It may be taken to represent also the position of a large segment of the Protestant community,

Did you see the part about the Protestant community in there?

NorthStar wrote:

Abortion is an intrinsic evil that leads to other evils and is therefore contrary to the welfare of society.

Regardless of how you or anyone else feels about abortion, it has always been a part of civilization, and will continue to be, until the CAUSE of it is gone. The CAUSE is unwanted pregnancy.

One reason I have so little patience with many pro-lifers is that they don't understand this. I realize they want to punish women for having sex, but if they really want women to stop having sex, or the type they disapprove of, they are going about it the wrong way.

Once the particular unwanted pregnancy has occurred, it is too late. It will be aborted, one way or another. The goal should be to try to avoid the unwanted pregnancy in the first place. Punishing the woman for getting pregnant OBVIOUSLY DOESN'T WORK, since abortions occur, legal or not.

futureshock wrote:

It says

Quote :

56 It appears to be the predominant, though not the unanimous, attitude of the Jewish faith. 57 It may be taken to represent also the position of a large segment of the Protestant community,

Did you see the part about the Protestant community in there?

Yes I did. However, the justices were making at least two major assumptions when arguing that a large segment of the Protestant community believes that life begins at birth. First, they were assuming that the stated positions of churches reflects the general membership of the relevant churches. Second, they were assuming that resistance to abortion laws reflected a belief that life begins at birth.

Neither of these assumptions appears to be accurate. The membership of pro-choice Protestant churches has plummeted since the passage of Roe v. Wade. The people who remain are mainly old people who cannot reproduce (and therefore reverse the declining membership) and whose religious habits were formed before the passage of Roe v. Wade. The declining membership of these churches suggests that the rank-and-file membership of those churches were never supportive of the tolerance shown by the church leadership toward abortion.

Statements by many of those churches since the passage of Roe v. Wade show that their acceptance of some abortions is not motivated by a belief that life begins at birth. For example, the United Method Church has stated the following: "...we believe that a profound regard for unborn human life must be weighed alongside an equally profound regard for fully developed personhood, particularly when the physical, mental, and emotional health of the pregnant woman and her family show reason to be seriously threatened by the new life just forming." The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has also expressed the belief that life begins before birth: "In reflecting ethically on what should be done in the case of an unintended pregnancy, consideration should be given to the status and condition of the life in the womb."

http://archives.umc.org/interior_print.asp?ptid=4&mid=991

http://www.elca.org/What-We-Believe/Social-Issues/Social-Statements/Abortion.aspx

The rapid rise of pro-life churches, alongside the depopulation of the pro-choice churches, indicates that the argument should carry even less weight now than it did when Roe v. Wade was issued.

futureshock wrote:

NorthStar wrote:

Abortion is an intrinsic evil that leads to other evils and is therefore contrary to the welfare of society.

Regardless of how you or anyone else feels about abortion, it has always been a part of civilization, and will continue to be, until the CAUSE of it is gone. The CAUSE is unwanted pregnancy.

How do you propose eliminating unwanted pregnancy without punishing the people responsible?

Quote :

One reason I have so little patience with many pro-lifers is that they don't understand this. I realize they want to punish women for having sex, but if they really want women to stop having sex, or the type they disapprove of, they are going about it the wrong way.

What is the right way?

Quote :

... Punishing the woman for getting pregnant OBVIOUSLY DOESN'T WORK, since abortions occur, legal or not.

Have you seen a graph of when in pregnancy abortions occur? They show that there is a huge decline in the number of abortions between Week 7 and Week 17. After that the trend reverses before evaporating around the point of viability. Last year there were only two abortions after the point when many fetuses become viable. Those trends suggest that women and abortionists hurry to get/perform abortions before they become illegal and are reluctant to participate in them once illegal.

http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/chs/abrpt/2007abrpt.pdf

NorthStar wrote:

I think having been conceived from rape dominates my views on abortion. Virtually all abortions result from men treating women and children as disposable. We might be able to reduce the incidence using contraception and other methods, but fundamentally abortion is about male irresponsibility and society's refusal to hold these men accountable.

"Virtually all..."?

When/if I make a claim like that, I support it with information.
I find this opinion a slight against the intelligence of women who obtain abortions, as well.

NorthStar wrote:

futureshock wrote:

NorthStar wrote:

Abortion is an intrinsic evil that leads to other evils and is therefore contrary to the welfare of society.

Regardless of how you or anyone else feels about abortion, it has always been a part of civilization, and will continue to be, until the CAUSE of it is gone. The CAUSE is unwanted pregnancy.

How do you propose eliminating unwanted pregnancy without punishing the people responsible?

Why does anyone need to be punished?

Quote :

Quote :

One reason I have so little patience with many pro-lifers is that they don't understand this. I realize they want to punish women for having sex, but if they really want women to stop having sex, or the type they disapprove of, they are going about it the wrong way.

What is the right way?

Quote :

... Punishing the woman for getting pregnant OBVIOUSLY DOESN'T WORK, since abortions occur, legal or not.

Have you seen a graph of when in pregnancy abortions occur? They show that there is a huge decline in the number of abortions between Week 7 and Week 17. After that the trend reverses before evaporating around the point of viability. Last year there were only two abortions after the point when many fetuses become viable. Those trends suggest that women and abortionists hurry to get/perform abortions before they become illegal and are reluctant to participate in them once illegal.

http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/chs/abrpt/2007abrpt.pdf

lol lol lol lol!!!