Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room Best Interests

It's not sex, John Andrew, it's taking responsibility for everything you do in life. If you are a life coach I should think you would know that.

Allow me to get personal for a minute. Just exactly what in the heck do you tell the people you speak with?

That was a nice rant, John, but it completely misses the point. I, for one, do not care who has sex with whom or what. They should be responsible for what whatever consequences result, however.

And for people to take responsibility, they need to be able to have the right to make decisions to do what they feel is right.

So, we are right back to where we were -- women need to have the right to make their own decisions if they are going to take responsibility.

If the government takes away women's rights to make their own decision and is going to make the decision for them, then the government has taken responsibility.

But the right wants to deny the women the right to make their own decisions and at the same time demand they take responsibility.

You can't have it both ways, guys. Sorry.

Not trying to have it both ways. We disagree about what choices should be available to women who have gotten themselves pregnant. That is fine. We can have that debate but don't try to recast it as a bunch of right wingers' obsession with sex. that is intellectually dishonest.

All I know is that the discussion got down to "If you have sex, you should be punished for doing so by having no further right to make a decision."

What else is this but another example of an obsession with how terrible sex is and how people must be punikshed for having sex -- unless it is the right kind of sex with the right kind of person in the right kind of place with the right kind of outcome?

The right simply needs to stop trying to dictate other people's personal morals -- and these mandated morals are always linked in some way to sex. The right can have any morals they want for themselves -- but it is time they step out of other people's lives.

that is a pretty idiotic summation of the polarity generated by this issue. Don't mean to sound so snotty, but really.......

use condoms
(sorry JA)

Nobody said anything about punishing people for having sex.

But if a couple has sex, they should be prepared for the consequences.

Why is that such a hard concept to grasp?

Let me get just as ridiculous as you are being, John. How far do we go in accomodating people? Obviously you think they don't need to act responsibly at the onset, and they need the option of killing a baby in order to properly be given a choice. Why not let them have a year or two to try out a new baby before they kill it? Obviously, the parents need to have a choice as to whether or not that baby is a good one. Why are we forcing parents to keep and raise the babies they give birth to? Let's not punish the poor mother by making her keep a baby that she now realizes she shouldn't have had. We need to give her a "trial period" to make sure she's going to like being a mother. Or maybe it's uglier than she wants. Or its temperament isn't what she was hoping for. Why force her to keep it when she could just eliminate it and have another one? After all - it's her life, and she should have a choice, right? In reality, it's only a matter of degree anyway, right? It's the *woman's* choice that is important after all, right? What difference does it make whether the baby is inside or outside the woman? Is their some kind of magical potion that gets rubbed on it as it slides out that makes it different once it's out? It's *her* life that matters, isn't that the whole point?

The problem you have John, is you place no value or importance on the life of the baby. Your value system is so polluted by leftist politics and leftist theology that you only see the mother. We are not concerned about sex, we're concerned about the babies. If all that was involved was the woman getting warts, then I could care less what choices she makes. But she isn't making a decision on her life alone, she is making a decision that will profoundly affect the life or death of another human being. You don't place any value on that, I do.

And don't try to belittle me because of it with snide, ignorant attempts to minimize my point of view to nothing more than ignorance and perversion while implying you are taking a higher road. Personally, I think my value system of considering *both* human lives is a morally and intellectually superior position to yours.

A fellow student of mine got pregnant a little more than 9 months ago (since she delivered the baby only recently ) Something went wrong with her pill. A difficult decision had to be made. She wanted to finish her studies of course, but with a baby to take care for that would be a tough job, especially if you know that she suffers from chronic fatigue syndrome. In the end, her parents decided to take care of the baby as long as was necessary so she could finish her studies and then start a normal life. I think they made a wonderful decision.

What does it say on the box again? 97% effective? There’s no need to say that this 3% ineffectivity can shake up your life pretty badly. You think you have it all neatly planned, and then suddenly something like that happens.

Now this girl was lucky to live in a family with no financial problems, lucky to have loving parents like that.

Imagine she would have been kicked out of her family and was paying her studies and her small apartment with money she and her boyfriend earned by working their butt off during the weekend (happens more than you might think). As an outsider it’s pretty easy to say that they have to keep the baby at all costs.

You say, Larry, that those who are pro-choice, place no value or importance on the life of the baby. Imagine that those in the last situation do not opt for adoption. What do you think would happen? That they live happily ever after?
Even if they would give their child up for adoption, she would still have to carry that child for nine months, and I don’t think you need John Moonlight to tell you that the mother doesn’t have 100% certainty that she’ll be perfectly healthy during these 9 months. Lots of things can go wrong. Possible consequenses : not being able to work for several months due to pregnancy related problems. What do you think will happen?
She’ll probably need an extra year to complete her studies, if she can still afford them after being unable to work for a long time, they might have to move to an even smaller and filthier apartment, her boyfriend might leave her because he cannot live in a way like that, …
IF the baby is adopted, it might live a happy life, though not in the family where it belongs, but there’s a big chance that the life of the young couple is reduced to a constant struggle for survival.
I think they should get an abortion and have a fair chance of living a happy life and starting a happy family, having children that can live with their true parents.
It’s not about placing value or importance on the life of the baby, it’s about placing value or importance on the life of everybody in question. An unwanted child can mess up someone’s life pretty badly. That fellow student of mine came to a wonderful solution with her parents but not everyone is that lucky. You want to force everyone to possibly mess up their entire life and possibly that of the unborn child because of bad luck with anticonception methods?

I’m pro-choice, what doesn’t mean I think the decision should be taken lightly. If there’s a fair chance of living a happy and normal life with the baby, then abortion should not be considered an option.

By the way, I have a similar issue here. My eldest sister has nearly completed her studies to become a midwife. She’s now (for her studies) working on premature babies. The parents have the choice whether the doctors try to save their premature child IF the chances of survival are considered small and if complications are likely (brain damage etc.). One of the major problems is that the lungs aren’t fully developed yet and that the child cannot breathe on itself. It needs to get oxygen, and enough oxygen to prevent brain damage. However, sometimes, for some reason, I don’t exactly remember why (I’ll ask my sister if I see her, or perhaps JohnM could enlighten us) the oxygen concentration is too high for eyes and ears, and a great deal of them turn up blind or deaf or even both, not to mention that many of them do end up with brain damage due to lack of oxygen. What kind of life will they have? Should life be saved at all costs here too?

Nunatex,
You're likely to have your beliefs challenged here today by some forum members. I just want to tell you I appreciate reading your post & respect the expression of your opinion.

The condition you refer to in reference to blindness is ROP (Retinopathy of Prematurity), brain damage is HIE (Hypoxic Ischemic Encephalopathy) or possibly IVH (Intraventricular Hemorrhage) ..... two possible results, and deafness possibly could be due to toxic levels resulting from Gentamicin/other aminoglycoside administration. Great progress has been made in the last 20 years to minimize/eliminate these & other problems associated with prematurity (at least in developed nations).... Your sister can probably explain this more fully to you.

Katie, I heard the funniest snippet on Prairie Home Companion today. It was a pretend ad for appreciation of nurses and was supposedly read by a nurse and went to the effect, "Appreciate your nurse, we know just as much as doctors do and we're MUCH nicer."

kathyk,
I like Prairie Home Companion ..... We used to listen to Garrison Keilor when we lived in B'ham, AL. I hope others will be polite to Nunatex.

Well, he did have his baptism by fire here awhile back (pretty much an all out attack from the alpha males - about the ugliest thread I have witnessed here) and he seemed to have survived remarkably well. He's a trooper with a great mind.

The problem with your argument is it does not refute what Larry said. I wouldn't speak for him, but I might guess that he would say you are using the same argument of convenience.

What makes this issue so divisive is lots of people simply do not agree about when human life begins. Some people believe life begins at conception. I totally respect that, even though I cannot bring myself to hold the same belief.

If you believe life begins at conception, then no amount of rationlization, no matter how extreme, could justify abortion - ie the taking of a human life. Also, if you have that belief, you may think that the term "pro-choice" is just as politically motivated as "pro-abortion." Or, in other words, you might think "where does the unborn human have a choice here?"

For myself, I do not believe human life begins at conception. I have no problem with termination of an early term pregnancy. I also do not have any problem with counseling pregnant mothers about the emotional/psychological and physical consequenses of abortion vs. carrying the embryo to fetus and giving birth.

I have no argument with people who believe sincerely that life begins at conception. It is what they believe, and have no right to do anything but repect that belief.

I appreciate your post Phlebas. As for me, .... I have, and will continue, to sit squarely on the fence concerning the issue of abortion, despite my Catholic upbringing. I continue to struggle with the issue of "What is HUMAN life?", and do have trouble considering a zygote, embryo or a young fetus as "human". My views have developed as I've had the opportunities, over 20 some years, to care for women post abortion, women undergoing fetal testing (for fetal abnormalities), many "healthy" premature infants & their families, many more "unhealthy" premature/full term babies born with congential defects/complications of pregnancy & their families, and most recently as a volunteer with pregnant foster kids/their babies. I really do not think I could function well as a nurse (or retired nurse, as I am now), and help these individuals if I held any definitive opinion re abortion.

Nunatax

The few moments of orgasmic ecstasy, is it worth it?

lb

Oddly enough, I have done the same job. Not as a nurse, but I have counseled a lot of women that have looked to enter the Catholic Church through their RCIA program. A lot have had abortions and most are looking to enter the Catholic Church because of the opportunity to get (their words here not mine:) to get their "sin" forgiven.

There a lot of women out there with real pain for their aborted children. And from what I've seen it doesn't matter when life begins for these women. The first couple of monthers feel just as bad as the late termers. These women are DEVASTATED.

Many have been through years of counseling and psychiatrists and psychologist and drugs and drink and all the things our society has to offer and have come up wanting.

Women name their babies, and speak of them in the present tense. ("Jason is seven, now.") There's a hole in these women in the shape of a baby.

What motivates me to be anti-abortion isn't so much my own convictions as the convictions of the women I've talked to who have had abortions.

If you made it, you take care of it.

A grown man, and a grown woman have responsibilities. And if one is big enough to make babies, one should be big enough to take care of them.

Or, if the choice is made by both involved, to give the child up for adoption, if that is an option.

While Nunatax's story is not uncommon, that is the way life is, and we do the best we can. All of us struggle with the decisions we make in life, some good, some bad. But we should do our best.

One's best, does not include killing babies for convenience.

TomK,
I know of a girl who named her fetus and thinks of her due date as its birthdate .... She had a spontaneous abortion ( a.k.a. miscarriage) though. I also know a few teens who named the babies they gave up for adoption & also celebrate the birthdays. And yes, I agree some women are quite devastated with their abortion decisions. And some others, get on with their lives ..... I'm thinking now of the women who, post abortion, became pregnant & had babies (these abortions occured after fetal testing diagnosed fatal congential defects) ..... I obviously haven't gone "full circle" with this issue yet . I did seek a volunteer parish nurse opportunity (with pregnant teens) some time back, but ended up working in another program with pregnant foster kids instead.... as I still have problems with the RC stance on birth control. I have never worked in a walk-in abortion-type clinic (just with women experiencing in-hospital abortions), so I don't have this experience (especially with early abortions) to draw upon.

I believe our opinions can be shaped by our experiences relating to most issues (including abortion). There is nothing wrong with this. I respect your position TomK.