Abortion Views

[MagicNakor]

Realize, also, that there is a vast spectrum of beliefs under what is classified "Christianity," so saying Christian-belief-this and Christian-belief-that isn't terribly convincing either.

[j2k4]

I have stated, more-or-less, that a woman should have access to abortion.

However, I believe the process of providing legal, across-the-board, no-questions-asked abortions has had the effect of precluding the necessity of due thought before the deed is done.

I am aware some (though not all) abortion providers have counseling available on-site, but this counselling is provided on request only; other than a bald offer of same, no effort is made to ascertain an in-depth state-of-mind.

What if the candidate is 12, 13, 14 years of age? How could anyone that young understand why counselling would even be considered necessary?

This does happen; in some cases a child of this age, upon discerning a pregnancy, merely needs to find a sympathetic adult ear who will consent to fill the role of an adult willing to chaperone the child through the process; Mom and/or Dad needn't be the wiser.

So-the abortion takes place, the child suffers a scar (sometimes) of a magnitude she should never have had to endure, and Mom and Dad are precluded from parental input that might provide some comfort and support.

I also recall an earlier mention of "guilt" in this thread (of this I am sure; it was me who mentioned it) which garnered a subsequent comment to the effect of "who are you to inflict guilt on a child/girl/woman over a decision that is hers, and hers alone, to make?"

How is it that guilt got such a bad rap?

I can understand wishing to avoid guilt; feeling guilt makes one feel, well, just awful.

But so much of what we abhor in this world is due to the over-weaning avoidance of guilt and stigma.

Feelings of guilt are part of the human condition; stigma is the attachment of societal judgement.

The avoidance of stigma, and the legal efforts that are made to aid in this endeavor, have led to such utter silliness as the recent judicial gymnastics over the public's right to know whether or not they would be apprised in a timely manner that a sexual deviant had come to roost in their neighborhood.

Such is the state of the current legal effort to ameliorate stigma.

Guilt is a slightly different story; guilt, and the prospect of suffering same, is what generally keeps us from being amoral violators of any principle of civilized behavior. Guilt is the lash we use on ourselves, not what others think of our behavior.

What could possibly be wrong with a society wherein a wee bit of guilt entered into the consideration of sexual activity could possibly result in a non-pregnancy?

Is the avoidance of guilt more important than what would regretfully follow?

[clocker]

Jeez j2.
It's late and this one is going to require some thought.

A few first impressions...

Speaking for myself only, all of my posts which advocated a woman's right to abortion presumed a certain level of maturity/age. I wasn't talking about children, for goodness sake.

For a pregnant 12 year old I would imagine that the possibility of abortion is just the tip of the iceberg problem-wise.

[MagicNakor]

It's fairly certain that, should a woman (I'm going to be side-stepping the 11/12 year old "issue" that's recently been raised) decide to have an abortion, she's going to feel a fair amount of guilt anyway. Why add to that? It certainly won't make her feel any better. Considering the hormone-wreaking havoc being dealt with during pregnancy, and its end, adding more emotional turmoil to that mix is just not a Good Idea. Should we bring back the scarlet letter? I'm sure we could attach other words to it.

[ilw]

Originally posted by hobbes@4 July 2003 - 04:04
To argue that abortion is "wrong" based on a number of cells is incorrect. We "grant" life to the fetus when we see something recognizably human. Toes, finger, tallywacker, etc.. We are placing our "humanity" on a glorified assembly of cells.

As i pointed out earlier in this topic my personal opinion and i think one of the major factors in deciding the deadline for abortions is that of nervous system and brain development. Personally I have no problem if the foetus has recognisable toes, hands, fingers or even a face, if theres nothing capable of feeling pain or responding to stimuli then for me it is simply not alive just as someone who is brain dead is not alive.
Life for me is not really something that special and mystical, a small cluster of cells which will probably develop into something much more complex is amazing, but in its current state not inherently valuable. Obviously we place value on what these cells develop into, but if the baby that the foetus will develop into is unwanted it seems natural to me that the value we place on the foetus will be diminished maybe to the extent that the mother takes the choice to abort it.
There will always be mothers who feel that abortion is the only way, to put undue pressure on them by treating it akin to infanticide will only drive abortion underground again which would lead to a much worse state of affairs.

[j2k4]

This scope of this topic doesn't need expansion, but I thought the recent reaction of Planned Parenthood to Bush's Aids program for Africa was kind of interesting:


Administration's HIV/AIDS Initiative Is Disastrous Public Health Policy

President Bush Visit to Africa is Mere Photo Op


July 3, 2003

(Washington, DC) - President Bush will use his trip to Africa beginning on Monday to tout his five-year, $15 billion anti-AIDS initiative, but it is unlikely that he will discuss the disastrous impact of the policies - and the domestic political concerns - behind it. The Bush AIDS initiative extends the administration's war on international family planning to HIV/AIDS prevention efforts in developing countries. One-third of the new AIDS prevention money for Africa will be directed to groups that take narrow and ineffective approaches to HIV/AIDS prevention by excluding condoms and relying on "abstinence-only" messages. These are precisely the policies pushed by the President's right-wing base.

"When it comes to finding and implementing good strategies to defeat the scourge of AIDS in Africa, sound public health policies should never take a back seat to ideology. Yet that is what has happened with President Bush's AIDS initiative," said Gloria Feldt, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "Millions of lives are at stake. We should be making the best use of these scarce resources, but the Bush policies waste money and cost lives."

The "abstinence-only" provisions of the Bush AIDS initiative were deliberately crafted by right-wing groups to prevent family planning providers from receiving the new AIDS funding. These family planning organizations, however, are best situated to help prevent and treat AIDS.

Many family planning providers in Africa have a long history of integrated service delivery for women and their families, a comprehensive approach to sexuality education, vast experience providing voluntary counseling and testing for sexually transmitted infection prevention, an ability to target at-risk populations, and extensive networks on the ground providing services. This enables them to quickly and effectively target additional HIV/AIDS funds to those most in need.

"Comprehensive family planning providers like Planned Parenthood and many other organizations working across Africa are critical to the fight against AIDS. They are known and trusted. They have established infrastructures in resource-poor countries. But they will likely be excluded from funding under the president's AIDS initiative. This will cripple any effort to effectively defeat the AIDS epidemic in Africa," added Feldt.

"Planned Parenthood is committed to doing the hard work to make sure that the American people understand the impact of this administration's extreme policies on women and their families in the most impoverished countries around the world. That is how we will change and improve our nation's policies," Feldt said.



This is an interesting viewpoint in light of the following, which is part of their mission statement:


International Family Planning
Planned Parenthood Federation of America affirms the fundamental right of each individual to manage his/her fertility free from coercion. It is Planned Parenthood's policy:

to support international programs which are designed to increase access to safe and effective means of voluntary fertility regulation;
to advocate and assist in the expansion of voluntary family planning services throughout the world;
to encourage public and governmental attitudes and policies favorable to the continuation and expansion of United States support for international voluntary family planning programs;
to provide leadership in encouraging other countries to address population issues and to develop their own effective voluntary family planning programs;
to assist community groups, agencies, and institutions in developing countries to undertake innovative, effective, and self-supporting voluntary family planning programs.



Planned Parenthood seeks legal protection to maintain unfettered control of private monies it receives; it seems they now want the same control over the taxpayer's cash Bush wants to spend in Africa to fight aids.

They apparently feel Bush is overstepping into their area of expertise.

Should Planned Parenthood be attempting to hijack the President's international policy?

Or are they just trying to expand their "empire"?

My apologies for diverting/expanding the thread.

[ilw]

Divert away, this was almost the original theme of this topic. As far as i'm concerned i think someone must take over from Bush in this area because I feel it is clear that the billions being spent are not being used in an effective way. 5 billion on abstinence and programs pushing Christianity seems ludicrous to me. Obviously America can distribute its aid however it pleases, but the funding here sounds like someone is furthering their personal agenda instead of providing real aid in an altruistic and philanthropic manner. For those who didn't read the post that sparked this one, heres the link (its another report of the same ilk as j2k4's last post)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3028820.stm

And anyone interested in the possibility of america changing its rules on abortion theres a little information here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3026248.stm

[j2k4]

Originally posted by ilw@4 July 2003 - 08:04
Obviously America can distribute its aid however it pleases, but the funding here sounds like someone is furthering their personal agenda instead of providing real aid in an altruistic and philanthropic manner.

ilw-

In your opinion, what would constitute "real aid in an altruistic and philanthropic manner"?

[ilw]

Aid that was being spent as well as possible to alleviate suffering and objectively improve peoples lives, instead of in this case trying to fulfill personal goals by spreading a belief system.
The 'real' was a mistake from when i changed the sentence sorry

[j2k4]

I would have to assert, here, Planned Parenthood's mission statement constitutes a belief system, also.

Granted, the "belief system" would change, depending, I guess, on who is president, but how can you say lives will not be improved?

If you were drowning, would you reject the offer of a life preserver based upon the politics of those who were offering?