Women's rights vs child's rights

[rajncajn]

I framed the title that way for a reason. Not because I'm trying to evoke a reaction, but because this is what I believe the entire abortion argument boils down to. That is my belief and mine alone. I posted in another thread what my personal experience is and that history is what I would say is my primary influence.

As I've expressed before, I am not "pro life" nor "pro choice." I honestly don't like either of those monikers because neither gives much room for common ground.

I believe that abortions should be allowed in cases of rape, incest and when the woman's heath  or the child's quality of life are at risk. By quality of life I specifically mean will the child have severe mental or physical deficiencies such as Downs Syndrome or severe congenital heart defects (these are only examples, but necessarily limited to). I am also ok with a prescribed abortion pill as long as it's provided very early within the possibility of pregnancy.

 

What I don't agree with is that abortion should be allowed in any case, at any time. I believe there should be some cutoff where the child's rights for a chance to survive supersede the woman's right to terminate it.

Sorry if that's short, but I did want to get a starter out there for discussion. I'm genuinely interested in seeing comparisons to where I stand on the subject and I hope that we can discuss without casting accusations or ridicule towards one another. I also hope that we can keep the political side out of if this. I know that everyone has strong feelings on Roe v Wade, but I'd like to get past that and discuss the heart of the issue.

Edited August 22, 2023 by rajncajn

[stevegrab]

I believe that abortion should be legal up until the time the fetus is viable outside the womb. Not just for incest or rape, or health of the baby or mother. That part seems to be missing from your position, and puts you pretty firmly in the Pro-Life camp, whether you like the term or not. 

Most that are pro choice do not want it allowed any time up until the birth, they want some reasonable amount of time after the woman finds out she is pregnant to allow her to end that pregnancy. 

The real problem that I and many others have, is that what was allowed for half a century is being eliminated across a large part of this country. In some cases an outright ban without exceptions for the things you mention. I just don't see how our nation 50 years later can be in favor of that change and going backwards in time. 

If there are politics in my post that is becaue the issue is rooted in politics at this time, if you want to remove them then a simple "up thru 13 weeks (first trimester) without any restrictions" would be my stance. 

[rajncajn]

4 hours ago, stevegrab said:

I believe that abortion should be legal up until the time the fetus is viable outside the womb. Not just for incest or rape, or health of the baby or mother. That part seems to be missing from your position, and puts you pretty firmly in the Pro-Life camp, whether you like the term or not.

I'll just say that I know pro-lifers that would completely disagree with you.

4 hours ago, stevegrab said:

Most that are pro choice do not want it allowed any time up until the birth, they want some reasonable amount of time after the woman finds out she is pregnant to allow her to end that pregnancy. 

A lot of the pro choice people that I've tried to discuss it with just don't think there should be any discussion at all. It should be the woman's choice, period. And often, when it's a woman,  I would get the "a man shouldn't have a say over what a woman does with her own body" stance. In fact,  I've got a few of those in my own (not immediate) family. 

4 hours ago, stevegrab said:

The real problem that I and many others have, is that what was allowed for half a century is being eliminated across a large part of this country. In some cases an outright ban without exceptions for the things you mention. I just don't see how our nation 50 years later can be in favor of that change and going backwards in time. 

If there are politics in my post that is becaue the issue is rooted in politics at this time, if you want to remove them then a simple "up thru 13 weeks (first trimester) without any restrictions" would be my stance. 

Roe is really a moot point with me. So if you want to discuss it then I would prefer you do it elsewhere. I was looking for a more personal discussion rather than a legal one. You're free to post whatever you want, I just don't think that introducing that into the discussion is necessary and is prone to starting a fire that I was trying to avoid.

Edited August 22, 2023 by rajncajn

[stevegrab]

Enjoy your one sided discussion with yourself where only rajn's views matter. Your personal life doesn't matter to me, what you discuss with other people is a moot point for our discussions. 

[rajncajn]

2 minutes ago, stevegrab said:

Enjoy your one sided discussion with yourself where only rajn's views matter. Your personal life doesn't matter to me, what you discuss with other people is a moot point for our discussions. 

If Roe v Wade is what you want to discuss, then discuss it. I have no contribution to make to that discussion as I've already stated my opinion on the subject in the Roe V Wade thread and have nothing further to add. All I'm saying is that my intent with this thread was to have a discussion about abortion itself, not the moralities, legalities & politics of the Roe v Wade decision.

[rajncajn]

Coming back to this, @stevegrab, you understand what I meant when I said Roe was a moot point to me, right? Maybe I just wasn't clear. I'm not saying it doesn't matter, I'm saying it isn't relevant to the discussion that I was trying to start. Regardless of whether or not R v W was overturned, it has no bearing on discussing the issue it relates to.

[stevegrab]

As I said before, enjoy your solo discussion with your narrow parameters. I made an attempt to respond, others have apparently viewed it and passed.  

[rajncajn]

12 minutes ago, stevegrab said:

As I said before, enjoy your solo discussion with your narrow parameters. I made an attempt to respond, others have apparently viewed it and passed.  

Gil & Bobby are apparently & ironically ignoring me now.

Not really sure why you're trying your best to argue with me here. I told you that you could discuss whatever you wanted. I was explaining the intent of the thread, which was meant to be separate from the R v W discussion and telling you that I had nothing further to add to that discussion. I started this thread because I told Gil that I would create a thread for discussion and try to keep the politics out of it. Maybe you just completely missed that post. But since I'm obviously not going to get any participation from anyone else, by all means have at it, derail away. Maybe you'll get more participation that way than I would just trying to have a discussion about abortion itself.

[Bobby Brown]

10 minutes ago, rajncajn said:

Gil & Bobby are apparently & ironically ignoring me now.

You said you were 'done with me,' and your latest conniption fit was insufferable.  I'm being respectful of your stance and your sensitivity.

[stevegrab]

On 8/22/2023 at 5:24 PM, rajncajn said:

If Roe v Wade is what you want to discuss, then discuss it. I have no contribution to make to that discussion as I've already stated my opinion on the subject in the Roe V Wade thread and have nothing further to add. All I'm saying is that my intent with this thread was to have a discussion about abortion itself, not the moralities, legalities & politics of the Roe v Wade decision.

I'm really not interested in discussing it much, I tried to offer an answer. You've expressed views very much at odds with mine and many others in America who see it as a choice for the people involved. Not with extreme limits that require rape/inceset or risk of the health of mother or child. And yes that comes from that choice being allowed and legal for the past almost 50 years under Roe. 

There is such a divide between your position and those that want it any time for any reason. (Most that are pro choice do not want that.) 

As for me trying to argue with you, that's rich. 

Let's get back to football, what this site is about. It is football season, I will spend less time in the off topic thread. 

[rajncajn]

30 minutes ago, stevegrab said:

I'm really not interested in discussing it much, I tried to offer an answer. You've expressed views very much at odds with mine and many others in America who see it as a choice for the people involved. Not with extreme limits that require rape/inceset or risk of the health of mother or child. And yes that comes from that choice being allowed and legal for the past almost 50 years under Roe. 

There is such a divide between your position and those that want it any time for any reason. (Most that are pro choice do not want that.) 

As for me trying to argue with you, that's rich. 

Let's get back to football, what this site is about. It is football season, I will spend less time in the off topic thread. 

That's what I'm trying to get at. You mentioned in an earlier post that you think it should be allowed up to the 1st trimester. So then you agree that there should be limits? Or do you? It was unclear. I'm not totally opposed to early term obviously, since I already mentioned the abortion pill being allowed. I think, for the most part, the country is much closer than most people think. But I think people's refusal to even talk about it outside of the politically influenced "sides" makes the discussion even more difficult to have than it already is. I think a very good start is seeing what we as a large majority can all to agree to.

[rajncajn]

2 hours ago, Bobby Brown said:

You said you were 'done with me,' and your latest conniption fit was insufferable.  I'm being respectful of your stance and your sensitivity.

So you're 'respectful' now?

If you'd just respond to what I actually post rather than trying to infer what you think is behind the post then maybe we could actually have some decent discussions on this board and not be going head-to-head all the time. But you just seem content on trying to make me out to be some fringe right-wing, trump nut. As I told Gil, I'm willing to have a discussion with anyone on here, but if you can't be civil about it and just want to hurl insults and ridicule then I'm not wasting my time anymore.

I started this thread in earnest as I said that I would and so far all I've gotten in return is silence and pushback. If that's the way y'all want it then go for it. I'll just do like everyone else that lurks here and keep my mouth shut. Because it's not worth the time and energy it takes to actually make a point.

[Bobby Brown]

Yes 

[stevegrab]

1 hour ago, rajncajn said:

That's what I'm trying to get at. You mentioned in an earlier post that you think it should be allowed up to the 1st trimester. So then you agree that there should be limits? Or do you? It was unclear. I'm not totally opposed to early term obviously, since I already mentioned the abortion pill being allowed. I think, for the most part, the country is much closer than most people think. But I think people's refusal to even talk about it outside of the politically influenced "sides" makes the discussion even more difficult to have than it already is. I think a very good start is seeing what we as a large majority can all to agree to.

Your initial post made NO MENTION of any access to abortion without rape/incest or a medical issue. That is a severe limit, and one I have not seen you say I misunderstood. You mentioned the abortion pill, I assume that would have the same restriction 'doctor has to approve it based on these rules". So in your view, abortion is not something the parents can choose to do, it must be approved by a doctor. 

I disagree, I think the parents should be allowed to choose, not up unitl full term, bu with something reasonable like first trimester. (Some states are doing 6 which is barely half that time, and some won't know they are pregnant yet.)

I doubt we as a large majority will agree to much, just based off the initial statement of what you would support. Unless I'm misreading that, but you've had numerous chances to correct that, and I've seen nothing. Just a lot more words trying to press me to answer some questions of yours. 

 

[rajncajn]

36 minutes ago, stevegrab said:

Your initial post made NO MENTION of any access to abortion without rape/incest or a medical issue. That is a severe limit, and one I have not seen you say I misunderstood. You mentioned the abortion pill, I assume that would have the same restriction 'doctor has to approve it based on these rules". So in your view, abortion is not something the parents can choose to do, it must be approved by a doctor. 

The abortion pill, by default, is taken post-conception for up to 10 weeks into pregnancy. So, just mentioning that I agree to it would also mean that I would agree to at least some form of post-conception abortion. I wasn't clear about restrictions though, so you are right. I think having the abortion pill available without a prescription is dangerous as it could be used by anybody for whatever reason. If a woman gets pregnant and someone doesn't like her or doesn't want her to have the baby for whatever reason all they would have to do is slip her the pill. There are also a lot of health risks associated with any abortion, even an abortion pill. That's why I think a doctor should be consulted before being prescribed an abortion pill. Not because I want it to be a restriction, but because it can be dangerous for both female and child.

36 minutes ago, stevegrab said:

I disagree, I think the parents should be allowed to choose, not up unitl full term, but with something reasonable like first trimester. (Some states are doing 6 which is barely half that time, and some won't know they are pregnant yet.)

To be clear, that's not necessarily a disagreement between us. I would probably concede 1st trimester depending on the how & why. I'll add, pregnancy can be detected up to 10 days after conception with a regular at-home test. If someone is having unprotected sex and they're concerned about getting pregnant then it's probably good to start testing. I'd totally be up for having free tests available at any health clinic with no strings attached. Meaning they could go in and ask for one and walk out. The same goes for condoms.

36 minutes ago, stevegrab said:

I doubt we as a large majority will agree to much, just based off the initial statement of what you would support. Unless I'm misreading that, but you've had numerous chances to correct that, and I've seen nothing. Just a lot more words trying to press me to answer some questions of yours.

I disagree that we can't agree.

Edited August 28, 2023 by rajncajn

[stevegrab]

I am DONE please stop quoting and responding to me. 

[rajncajn]

You got it

[Big Country]

18 hours ago, rajncajn said:

I would probably concede 1st trimester depending on the how & why.

Could you flush this out a bit.

You say you would "concede 1st trimester" but then have added the additional caveat of depending on "how and why", implying that you are not in fact "conceding" the first trimester. What additional restrictions would you want to see on 1st trimester abortions?

For me, it's a tricky subject, but when I try and boil my personal feelings/preferences down, I come back to the idea that regardless of what I think, this should be a decision between the woman and her medical provider, and I should not be one trying to dictate what that decision is when I am not involved.

[rajncajn]

6 hours ago, Big Country said:

Could you flush this out a bit.

You say you would "concede 1st trimester" but then have added the additional caveat of depending on "how and why", implying that you are not in fact "conceding" the first trimester. What additional restrictions would you want to see on 1st trimester abortions?

The how and why wouldn't necessarily be on 1st trimester restrictions. I think as long as other restrictions/exceptions, such as mentioned previously, are put in place along with, then I'd feel comfortable compromising. I'd also want more resources/protections put in place for women who choose not to keep their child as well as required paternal responsibility if they choose to have it and/or keep it.

Admittedly, where I waffle is where exactly in 1st trimester would be an ideal time for a cutoff. A lot of that depends on personal feelings, social pressures etc. I would say that's best left up to experts for the whether and when. I know that's a bit of a cop out, but I won't pretend that I'm an expert on that subject and so I'm not going to show my ignorance by saying it should be by X date. 

6 hours ago, Big Country said:

For me, it's a tricky subject, but when I try and boil my personal feelings/preferences down, I come back to the idea that regardless of what I think, this should be a decision between the woman and her medical provider, and I should not be one trying to dictate what that decision is when I am not involved.

This is something I struggle with as well. While part of me agrees, there's also this part of me that really feels in my heart like there is another life that doesn't get a choice. They have no right to their own life.

A lot of those feelings probably come from my own personal experience. So it makes me feel like, why shouldn't I have a say because that could have well been me.

Edited August 29, 2023 by rajncajn

[rajncajn]

6 hours ago, Big Country said:

Could you flush this out a bit.

 BTW, Freudian slip? Auto-correct? Otherwise, that's a bit cringe-worthy for the subject.

[1fastdoc]

This topic typically comes down to the same thing, how each of us individually define morality. Because our experiences play such a large role and because they vary so greatly, it will never be a topic where everybody agrees on a specific set of mores. 

 

That said, I'll ask this of those who are in favor of strict restrictions - have you spent considerable time in poverty stricken, poorly educated (and typically high crime by necessity) communities? Ones in which the parents pay nothing for rent, health care and most food? Where they pay nothing in taxes? Where they have few resources needed to raise children that will benefit society? Where they get more money from the govt for having more kids? If you have then I would ask, what's the best stance on abortion if the goal is a prosperous society? Just food for thought. 

[rajncajn]

On 8/31/2023 at 7:35 AM, 1fastdoc said:

This topic typically comes down to the same thing, how each of us individually define morality. Because our experiences play such a large role and because they vary so greatly, it will never be a topic where everybody agrees on a specific set of mores. 

 

That said, I'll ask this of those who are in favor of strict restrictions - have you spent considerable time in poverty stricken, poorly educated (and typically high crime by necessity) communities? Ones in which the parents pay nothing for rent, health care and most food? Where they pay nothing in taxes? Where they have few resources needed to raise children that will benefit society? Where they get more money from the govt for having more kids? If you have then I would ask, what's the best stance on abortion if the goal is a prosperous society? Just food for thought. 

I don't know if you'd define what I'm speaking of as strict. I'm sure there are those that do and some that don't think I go far enough. Like you said, it's all about perspective. What I hope is that we can all express our perspective and others at least take the time to consider it.

 

To answer the question though, I wouldn't say that I grew up "poor." My dad was a retail manager and my stepmom a teacher. We were comfortable and had much more than most in the neighborhood I lived in, which was one of the poorest areas in town. Most of my closest friends lived in public housing (projects) and were single-parent families. We were also a heavy- minority area, mostly Vietnamese refugees who came to work in the seafood industry, but also a lot of blacks as well. My family background was from extreme poverty. My paternal side were cajun share-croppers from south Louisiana. My grandfather moved to Mississippi after WWII to work in the seafood factories. My maternal side were German immigrants who came to Mississippi to work in the lumber industry. So the answer is yes, I am very well aware of what it's like to live in those  conditions.

Edited September 8, 2023 by rajncajn

[1fastdoc]

10 minutes ago, rajncajn said:

I don't know if you'd define what I'm speaking of as strict. I'm sure there are those that do and some that don't think I go far enough. Like you said, it's all about perspective. What I hope is that we can all express our perspective and others at least take the time to consider it.

 

To answer the question though, I wouldn't say that I grew up "poor." My dad was a retail manager and my stepmom a teacher. We were comfortable and had much more than most in the neighborhood I lived in, which was one of the poorest areas in town. Most of my closest friends lived in public housing (projects) and were single-parent families. We were also a heavy- minority area, mostly Vietnamese refugees who came to work in the seafood industry, but also a lot of blacks as well. My family background was from extreme poverty. My paternal side were cajun share-croppers from south Louisiana. My grandfather moved to Mississippi after WWII to work in the seafood factories. My fraternal side were German immigrants who came to Mississippi to work in the lumber industry. So the answer is yes, I am very well aware of what it's like to live in those  conditions.

Poverty yes, but it also sounds like many were immigrants and they likely brought with them a work ethic.  Their children then had the chance to improve their situation.  That's not the culture to which I'm referring.  What about the single mom with 5 kids who doesn't work, collects checks that your taxes pay for and uses her extra money for things that most in society would consider unhealthy.  She's about to be a grandmother from her eldest teenage daughter.   What about when she gets pregnant again.  But, this time she realizes that she can't handle another child.  She wants an abortion.  You're about to vote on a proposition to ban abortion in that state.  She's too poor to travel to another state.  Does her story give you pause?   Do you vote to deny her the ability since there are no mitigating circumstances?  

[rajncajn]

3 hours ago, 1fastdoc said:

Poverty yes, but it also sounds like many were immigrants and they likely brought with them a work ethic.  Their children then had the chance to improve their situation.  That's not the culture to which I'm referring.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. My knee-jerk is that you're being a bit dismissive and making a lot of assumptions on just a little info, so it's tough for me to answer this. Impoverished to me is impoverished.

Quote

What about the single mom with 5 kids who doesn't work, collects checks that your taxes pay for and uses her extra money for things that most in society would consider unhealthy.

 

I almost followed up with an example after my last post so I'm really glad you brought this question. My best friend growing up was the youngest of 6. His father left the family shortly after he was born due to severe PTSD from Korea and the loss of his leg. My friend's mom raised their whole family by herself while working the lunch counter at Woolworth. Every person in their family now have families & kids/grandkids of their own.

Quote

  She's about to be a grandmother from her eldest teenage daughter.   What about when she gets pregnant again.  But, this time she realizes that she can't handle another child.  She wants an abortion.  You're about to vote on a proposition to ban abortion in that state.  She's too poor to travel to another state.  Does her story give you pause?   Do you vote to deny her the ability since there are no mitigating circumstances?  

But, I have a couple of problems with the question: One, it's overly specific, but I get the point. Second, you say she uses her extra money for things that most in society would consider unhealthy, yet she's too poor to travel to another state? Maybe not mutually exclusive, but it's skirting the line. Regardless of my skepticism, there's still the option of giving the child up for adoption. Regardless of all of that, I still support early term abortion, so if it was a complete abortion ban then I would likely vote against it.

[stevegrab]

I think a simple limit on time is all that is needed. Then maybe some exceptions if the mother's health is at risk after that limit. Many who want more restrictions want some group (appointed bythose currently in power in their conservative state) to decide if you meet their criteria for allowing abortion. That won't include "because you want one" it will only include things they perceive to allow the abortion according to their morality. In some cases that may not even include horrible situations like rape or incest. 

Some would want none allowed ever, under any circumstances. And some states in this country are already there or heading that way. Very few want abortion allowed up until tbirth, or even beyond the first trimester. 

It would be nice to have this as a federal law, but not sure that can happen with the nation so divided.