Had an abortion? Brag about it!

souldaddy wrote:

Johnny is right, God genetics whatever, the purpose of sex is procreation.

I wonder: If sex's purpose is procreation, does that mean an infertile or sterilized person should not be having sex?

Well, from a biological perspective, the purpose of sex is undeniably procreation. But yeah, as I sort of stated back on page 1, I agree that there's a lot more to it.

Farscry wrote:

My point is that you cannot state that this view is an indisputable fact. It is a point of view based upon religious belief or interpretation of science. No more, no less.

No, it's an indisputable fact. Those organs are there for procreation. Religion and science agree on that point. The pleasure is a side-effect, a trick of evolution to get you to do it. Man has tamed sex so that we can have it without having children, so for practical purposes you are right. However, millions of years of evolution point to the purpose of sex as procreation.

KaterinLHC wrote:
souldaddy wrote:

Johnny is right, God genetics whatever, the purpose of sex is procreation.

I wonder: If sex's purpose is procreation, does that mean an infertile or sterilized person should not be having sex?

This question seems to mix evolutionary genetics with morality. Because I state that the purpose of sex is procreation, that doesn't mean I am siding with the Catholic moral declaration that your christian duty is to have kids. The purpose of fire is combustion; the smart man harnesses that purpose to his needs and builds a car to drive around the forest fire instead of walk around it.

KaterinLHC wrote:
souldaddy wrote:

Johnny is right, God genetics whatever, the purpose of sex is procreation.

I wonder: If sex's purpose is procreation, does that mean an infertile or sterilized person should not be having sex?

Or old people? Or gay people? Or, *gasp* free-willed people?

I wonder: If sex's purpose is procreation, does that mean an infertile or sterilized person should not be having sex?
Or old people? Or gay people? Or, *gasp* free-willed people?

Oh good Lord people.

Is there anyone that doubts the purpose of eating and drinking is to sustain life? Just because the biological function can also produce pleasure, and therefore some people put the pleasure above the purpose; it doesn't mean that the purpose isn't still the purpose.

The purpose of sex in all living things is procreation. There is pleasure in the act of sex, and yes Fars, Christianity says that sexual intimacy is an important part of marriage. In fact, sex is too be enjoyed - with your spouse.

My wife had a fetal demise with our first pregnancy at about 5 months and how it played out really affected my thinking. I had posted this once before on GWJ, but deleted it within moments.

I respect folks who value their religion highly, I really do, but I just have no patience for those who dictate religious morality around abortion. I believe women do have a right to choose, up until a certain point. I dont believe in late term abortions.

I only had one personal encounter with what I consider a religious anti-abortion nut. It changed my viewpoint on others dictating morality forever and just let me explain before you jump to any conclusions.

Warning from Irongut: I know this is a personal story so if its too much, please just skip, it was clearly a defining moment in my life. This post is not about abortion, though it affected the story.

Our first baby died in the womb at 5 months, a fetal demise We found out via an ultrasound that was supposed to be a routine checkup and somehow they could tell it had been dead for about 2 weeks. Those two weeks happened to be Christmas with family with lots of excited talk about the coming baby etc. You can imagine the emotions of it all.

We were destroyed. It was just an ugly unexplained twist of fate. But immediately there were some hard decisions to make. There was the danger that the baby's remains would poison my wife if not removed immediately because so much time had already passed We had 2 choices, induce the birth, which just seemed like too much for my wife to bear (I wouldve been a wreck beyond belief too), or because of the large size, we were at the very end of the window where the right 'specialist' might still be able to remove it. We chose the second option, my wife in particular was shattered enough as was.. I didnt need her going through the emotion of a stillborn birth and then possibly seeing the baby. (I say her, but I was a wreck too)

From there everything becomes a blur, but within 1.5 days we went to 'the specialist twice' First for a briefing and second for the procedure. At the first briefing he warned me, there would be anti-abortion folks outside the clinic even though it was a very early am appointment, and just to ignore them, escorting my wife in.

Well the morning came, and a couple of folks were outside as I went to escort her in. I was in a bad temper, and not about to be judged, so I paused for a second as they called us sinners and pushed brochures into every spot on us they could. I just looked the 'leader' in the eyes and foolheartedly tried to explain "The baby is already dead, its been dead for 2 weeks." But the person was so blinded by their moral mission, that they took it to mean I made up my decision two weeks ago instead of at face value. I gave up, had a moment of clarity and refocused on getting my wife in the doors as fast as possible for her appointment, with words of condemnation and cries of murderer being hurled at us from behind.

And that is really the point of my post here, I realized how blinded folks can be by their moral perspective, a very naive thing to be realizing it at 30 years old. But it has affected my perspective on the highly religious to pro-life etc etc.

No need to post any sympathy or compassion around the topic either. I've healed (well as much as a person can hope too, I still think about it occasionally) and after 4 years of on-again-off-again pregnancy, we are very very thankful for the two little boys we have now.

souldaddy wrote:
KaterinLHC wrote:
souldaddy wrote:

Johnny is right, God genetics whatever, the purpose of sex is procreation.

I wonder: If sex's purpose is procreation, does that mean an infertile or sterilized person should not be having sex?

This question seems to mix evolutionary genetics with morality. Because I state that the purpose of sex is procreation, that doesn't mean I am siding with the Catholic moral declaration that your christian duty is to have kids. The purpose of fire is combustion; the smart man harnesses that purpose to his needs and builds a car to drive around the forest fire instead of walk around it.

No, I'm not trying to trick you, or mix morality into that at all. I'm just trying to follow the logic. If the purpose of sex is procreation, then doesn't that mean that infertile or sterilized people have no reason to be having sex? After all, they can't have children. And thus, they can't use sex for its purpose.

Unless, of course, sex has a secondary purpose. I'll speculate that the pleasure we feel from having sex is not just a side-effect or evolutionary trickery to get us to keep makin' them babies. I think it is, in and of itself, a driving purpose behind sex. That is: We humans are social creatures, and I think sex is one tool we use to establish social boundaries and pack structure. A new family unit starts with two people who have sex together. Having pleasurable sex with someone helps you identify a mate with whom you choose to a) mix your genes and b) construct a new family unit. Unpleasurable sex allows you to weed out the mates you do not want to do this with.

Just a thought, though. Personal speculation, and it really has no bearing on the discussion about abortion at hand.

Is it right and proper, given the knowledge that a child will grow up with a painful, debilitating disease (I'm not going to specify one here) that will no question, 100% give them a terrible quality of life...Is it right to let that child be born to suffer, given the chance to detect it and kill the fetus early on?

Johnny, I know you believe there is only one right answer to this. But I can't find it in myself to inflict that pain on a child, if I could avoid it. (And yes, I support voluntary euthanasia as well.) My point in bringing this up is to show that both sides have difficult decisions to make, regardless of the overall stance. For example, I don't see anti-abortion adoption advocates lining up to take kids with serious birth defects. That situation is left to the parents, but your stance would remove from them (and their child) the only recourse they have to avoid this painful situation.

There are no easy, prescriptive answers from either side. Each individual must make this choice, which on most other issues is the Conservative stance. On this one, however, sometimes defending the child means torturing the child.

Is death before consciousness actually death as we understand it? (Note that this is still not an argument for abortion on demand, so that does not come into it.)

I bring this all up as a "hard question" for anti-abortion folks, not as a jab or a flippant response.

souldaddy wrote:
Farscry wrote:

My point is that you cannot state that this view is an indisputable fact. It is a point of view based upon religious belief or interpretation of science. No more, no less.

No, it's an indisputable fact. Those organs are there for procreation. Religion and science agree on that point. The pleasure is a side-effect, a trick of evolution to get you to do it. Man has tamed sex so that we can have it without having children, so for practical purposes you are right. However, millions of years of evolution point to the purpose of sex as procreation.

Unless you're about to tell me that science can disprove religious beliefs, which I don't think you are, then no, this is not an indisputable fact.

As I stated, I've read the Bible, I've drawn conclusions from it based on both my own interpretation and speaking with others through church/Bible studies, and my interpretation of it is that sex is first and foremost for the consummation and continuing intimate rejuvenation of a marriage.

Or are you going to tell me that my religious belief is indisputably wrong, Souldaddy? Same goes for you, JMJ. I respect both of your views. But I would hope that neither of you is going to sit there and tell me that I am flat out wrong in my religious views. I would hope that there are some lines of mutual respect that we're not going to cross here.

As I said, it is your view on the matter, but not an indisputable fact. Much like we can agree that evolution is an established scientific process, but the source of that process and whether it disproves Creationism is not something we can say is indisputable.

That said, while this has some small bearing on the original conversation re: abortion and determining whether a child's potential health problems justify preventing them from having a chance at life, I think it's a big digression. I'm not even trying to debate and convince someone of my view on sex, but rather I am insulted by someone telling me flat out that my person belief/religious view is indisputably wrong.

JoeBedurndurn wrote:
If your view is valid, then Israel is arguably the world's epicenter of institutionalized Eugenics -- abortions of fetutes with permanent diseases are state-funded there.

Seriously? I think my ironometer just exploded.

Yes. A disproportionately large number of European Jews' populations suffers from a range of rare hereditiary maladies affecting their cardiovascular and neuromotor systems. A person of Ashkenazi descent is calculated to have a risk of being born with said defect that exceed 18 times versus other ethnicities. If said person is older than 30 years old, a chance of giving birth to a baby with Down syndrome is 15 times higher than for others.

Israeli government runs programs that seek to identify these genetic ailments early in the term, and offer abortions to the willing parents. This gets as close as one can imagine to Eugenics, which, as Robear already described, has aim to create a Better Human. By essentially amounting to a state-sponsored removal of a malfunctioning portion of recessant genes from the gene pool of the entire nation, these programs can be considering as taking a critical step from quantity to quality.

The Orthodox views on that differ over a wide spectrum, as far as I understand, because Hassidim only approve of aborion if the mother's health is directly in danger from the pregnancy.

The government also funds lion share of all genome mapping research happening in the country.

Others pls correct me if I am wrong, I don't have time to do any googling atm.

Irongut, I applaud your maturity. If that had been me, and they were flinging those awful, horrible, hurtful statements at my wife, I would've gotten her inside asap, and then probably gone back outside and gotten myself arrested in an ugly shouting match with those people.

Robear, you make a good point, and one I've spoken to in this thread. While I can understand wanting to spare someone a lifetime of suffering, who are we to say whether that life would be worth it to the person if they were given the chance? Look at Stephen Hawking; do you think he'd rather have never been born? Though incapable of almost any physical action, and probably suffering due to his medical condition, he also continues to experience wonder through continual learning and thought, and I imagine he's probably happy to be alive despite the drawbacks. What about any number of people with severe medical problems that we would consider life-destroying, but who have risen above their limitations and found great joy in life?

One of my closest friends at the end of high school was a wonderful, amazing girl named Marichi. She had Cystic Fibrosis, and she and everyone in her life knew that it was going to be the death of her at a young age. She barely made it to adulthood before it claimed her. One could argue if they knew of it before she was born, that it would be a mercy to spare her from such a painful and short life. But she was one of the most amazing people I ever knew, and had such a positive outlook and lived her life to its fullest. I miss her, and to her credit it was she who made me look at my own life very differently.

I think it is cruelly unfair of us to judge who is capable of living a full and worthy life, and who should be "spared" from living. I will never be convinced otherwise. Voluntary euthanasia is an entirely different matter, and I lean towards supporting that. You're at least leaving the choice with the individual who has to live (or not) with it. "Mercy abortion" takes that choice away.

Fars: I think that the hard choice regarding that girl's life should be up to the parents. Ultimately their, and their only choice to make. Although the circumstances can force their hands in a big way, of course. For example, I suppose that this girl's short years could have been a whole different experience would she be born to a "different socio-economic strata". Or, by a miserable chance, had her condition induce a stroke which would leave her a vegetable for half of her short life.

Like it has been already said, this choice will always be deeply personal and profoundly disturbing. Trying to bring up more and more what-if examples and counter-examples only underscores the fact that there isn't a single fits-them-all answer.

We really had to mull this very topic over with each of my son's pregnancies. I have a big head, and I'm sure my boys are lucky to inherit my big egg. On the ultrasounds the doctor every time would recommend considering amnio's. We turned them down with all 3 pregnancies after our original lost one. I just figured #1) it was little version of my noggin but #2) If an amnio came back identifying down syndrome, I figured it would really do nothing other than cause us additional worry while we were trying to focus on the pregnancies. If there wasnt an intent to act on an identification of downs, then to me, there was really no reason to get the test.

My poor wife though.. I had her eating broccoli every day.

JohnnyMoJo wrote:

The point is that there is a right choice. There might not be an easy choice, but there is a right one.

Saying that it might be hard on the mom or that the child might have a hard time are rationalizations to cope with the ugly truth: abortion is the ultimate selfish act. The mom has a life that she doesn't want impacted by this baby.

Johnny, I also believe that abortion is a bad decision and a deplorable act. Having said that, I support legalized abortion. How can these two viewpoints coincide? I'll tell you -- because reality forces them to. Reality tells me that if abortion were illegal, may women would kill themselves and their babies trying to get abortions. Reality tells me that if abortion were illegal, many babies would be born to single parents who are completely incapable of raising or caring for their child and would end up living lives you wouldn't wish upon your worst enemy.

In a perfect world abortion would be illegal. There would be no irresponsible sex. There would be no single-parent families. There would be no teenage pregnancy. There would be no debilitating conditions. People would give up their babies for adoption if they were incapable of being a good parent. In a perfect world I agree with you.

We don't live in a perfect world so I support legalized abortion. If you can find a way to eliminate the societal and behavioral factors that contribute to people getting abortions, the problem would go away and there would be no abortions. Until that time, I see it as a necessary evil.

Some good points Gorilla, also along what Kat said earlier. Marichi was born to a relatively lower-middle class (or upper-lower?) in rural Louisiana. So, for what it's worth, I get the impression the economic burden on her family was anything but light.

My personal view will always remain that it's better to let one have a shot at life than to deny them that out of a misplaced (but understandable) concern for whether their life will be too painful to be worthwhile.

My intention isn't to paint those who make that choice in a demonizing light, but rather to explain why I feel it's ultimately the wrong choice, no matter how well-intentioned. I do realize that it's not as clear-cut for everyone else as it is for me; my view is heavily influenced by the experiences I've had and people I've known.

On this one, however, sometimes defending the child means torturing the child.

Have you ever heard of Rick and Dick Hoyt? Dick was born with the umbilical wrapped around his neck, and the lack of oxygen robbed him of the use of his body (cerebral palsy). Rather than have me tell it, read this, then watch this.

Can you tell me that Rick's life wasn't worth living? Can you say that their story doesn't uplift the heart and give hope? This man's handicap, his family, his father's love have affected thousands, if not millions of people. Is his life worth less than a healthy man's?

Perhaps we should make abortion legal up to three days after birth...just in case a deformity escapes earlier notice.

And the other thing is, in a not-so-distant future, we should expect health insurance carriers to begin having qualms with parents forgoing ultrasound, amnio, and genetic testing of their fetuses. And adjusting the insurance premiums accordingly. Moreso if tests results aint good.

While we'll still have people in this forum maintaining that "universal healthcare is evil" because their party leaders tell them so.

In a perfect world abortion would be illegal. There would be no irresponsible sex. There would be no single-parent families. There would be no teenage pregnancy. There would be no debilitating conditions. People would give up their babies for adoption if they were incapable of being a good parent. In a perfect world I agree with you.

We don't live in a perfect world so I support legalized abortion. If you can find a way to eliminate the societal and behavioral factors that contribute to people getting abortions, the problem would go away and there would be no abortions. Until that time, I see it as a necessary evil.

I never said it should be illegal. Restricted, yes (no late term abortions, parental or judge's consent if under 18, mandatory counseling), but illegal? No.

The heart of conservatism is recognition that we don't live in a perfect world

JohnnyMoJo wrote:

Perhaps we should make abortion legal up to three days after birth...just in case a deformity escapes earlier notice.

I'd argue for 216 months. If you're gonna go, go all out.

JohnnyMoJo wrote:
On this one, however, sometimes defending the child means torturing the child.

Have you ever heard of Rick and Dick Hoyt? Dick was born with the umbilical wrapped around his neck, and the lack of oxygen robbed him of the use of his body (cerebral palsy). Rather than have me tell it, read this, then watch this.

Can you tell me that Rick's life wasn't worth living? Can you say that their story doesn't uplift the heart and give hope? This man's handicap, his family, his father's love have affected thousands, if not millions of people. Is his life worth less than a healthy man's?

Johnny, you're talking from a position of convenience that is even more reprehensible than that of this woman with a Down fetus. You're making this family's plight (and the by-product of it, which was the astonishing way they got through it) a banner of your argument. "Isn't their example motivating and righteous?!" The next thing to say is "Dangit, we need more families like that!!". This is a perfect example of suberting mores for the purposes of ideology, producing what we know as propaganda.

When I was a child, one of the mandatory reading books in Soviet schools was a novel about a true life account of some WWII Red Army fighter plane pilot. Shihonage, pop quiz: name and author? The guy got shot down and catapulted deep in the occupied territory, and made it back, crawling 17 days through the winter forest. He made it back, but lost both his legs due to a frostbite. Nevertheless, he got himself the best prosthetics available, exercises like hell, trained in a pilot school again endlessly, and eventually got into the cockpit of a fighter plane again, and shot down 13 Luftwaffe plains in the rest of his career if I remember the numbers right. He was awarded with a Hero of The Soviet Union order and became a shining wartime icon bigger than Vassily Zaitsev.

And the teacher we had in that class said: "in retrospect, isn't loss of legs the right thing happening to him at the right time? think of the wartime propaganda created, think about all the people he inspired to fight till Victory!"

:\

Johnny, you're talking from a position of convenience that is even more reprehensible than that of this woman with a Down fetus. You're making this family's plight (and the by-product of it, which was the astonishing way they got through it) a banner of your argument. "Isn't their example motivating and righteous?!" The next thing to say is "Dangit, we need more families like that!!". This is a perfect example of suberting mores for the purposes of ideology, producing what we know as propaganda.

Umm....riiiiiight. Which more exactly am I supposedly subverting?

The guy got shot down and catapulted deep in the occupied territory, and made it back, crawling 17 days through the winter forest. He made it back, but lost both his legs due to a frostbite. Nevertheless, he got himself the best prosthetics available, exercises like hell, trained in a pilot school again endlessly, and eventually got into the cockpit of a fighter plane again, and shot down 13 Luftwaffe plains in the rest of his career if I remember the numbers right. He was awarded with a Hero of The Soviet Union order and became a shining wartime icon bigger than Vassily Zaitsev.

And the teacher we had in that class said: "in retrospect, isn't loss of legs the right thing happening to him at the right time? think of the wartime propaganda created, think about all the people he inspired to fight till Victory!"

That would be Alexei Maresiev. The book was probably "Story of a Real Man" by Boris Polevoy, FTW.

That being said, stories of human achievement and courage are celebrated for a reason. Sometimes they might be used for gain by others, but that fact does not diminish the accomplishment or the admiration that most feel for that.

My point with the Hoyt family is that you can't say when a life isn't worth living. If possible pain and hardship are the criteria, who gets to set the standard? I don't know what your exposure is to severely handicapped people, but every life has value, and sharing that fact through an inspirational story isn't propaganda.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

And the other thing is, in a not-so-distant future, we should expect health insurance carriers to begin having qualms with parents forgoing ultrasound, amnio, and genetic testing of their fetuses. And adjusting the insurance premiums accordingly. Moreso if tests results aint good.

I disagree. If anything they will *force* couples to do these tests (in the name of the babies health of course), and change the premiums accordingly. Theyw ill do anything to cut liability.

One could argue if they knew of it before she was born, that it would be a mercy to spare her from such a painful and short life.

I'm arguing from the edge. Can you say *every* person with CF leads such a fulfilling existence? At what point do we acknowledge that there are lives we'd prefer not to live? People make that decision all the time (again, I also support voluntary euthanasia).

As long as there is no blanket solution, we should leave options open, even hard ones.

Johnny, I know your position, and you know mine. Your flexibility given your stance is commendable. We are not terribly far apart.

Robear wrote:
One could argue if they knew of it before she was born, that it would be a mercy to spare her from such a painful and short life.

I'm arguing from the edge. Can you say *every* person with CF leads such a fulfilling existence? At what point do we acknowledge that there are lives we'd prefer not to live? People make that decision all the time (again, I also support voluntary euthanasia).

I noted in my post that I support voluntary euthanasia for the same reason that I am against mercy abortions: I would prefer to err on the side of self-determination rather than have any of us make the choice of life or death without regard for the decision the individual in question would rather make.

Can you say that the *majority* of people with CF would welcome a mercy killing? I never claimed that everyone with a life-affecting serious condition is grateful for their life and would not prefer to have never been born. I'm sure there are some for whom their existence is more of a curse than a blessing. But I believe that most of them would prefer to have their life than to have none at all. And that remains the crux of my argument: self-determination. Free will. If I decide whether your life is worthwhile or not, I have removed self-determination from you. If I decide whether my life is worthwhile or not, then I am exercising self-determination.

Robear wrote:

I'm arguing from the edge. Can you say *every* person with CF leads such a fulfilling existence? At what point do we acknowledge that there are lives we'd prefer not to live?

See, I don't feel qualified to make that distinction, and I would be extremely suspicious of anyone who does.

In my mind, it's much the same as the death penalty. A compelling argument can be made for the death penalty based on rights theory, but what if a mistake has been made and the next guy on death row is innocent? What if the parents of an unborn child with CF make the wrong decision, and abort a child who would have had a fulfilling existence? The only thing that makes any sense to me in that case is to err on the side of life.

Edit: Farscry, you beat me to it. High five it, brutha.

This is a fascinating conversation, and I'm incredibly impressed by the quality, thoughtfulness, and downright civil discussion here. It is really refreshing.

On the topic of abortion, there isn't much for me to add that hasn't been argued well on both sides. I shall only say that, for my part, I thank the Divine Source every day that, ultimately, the decision to have an abortion is never solely in the hands of those with a penis.

Secondly, on the topic of sex and procreation: sex, as it is portrayed in the Bible, is so narrowly defined as to be nearly irrelevant to the discussion in today's society. Case in point: the clitoris. Nowhere is it mentioned in the Bible, yet it has scientifically been proven to serve but one purpose: pleasure. And boys, in case you're still learning, there are many, many ways to enjoy and stimulate the female anatomy (read: "have sex"), and very few of them have to do with the use of your penis (read: "have intercourse"). Thus ends my argument that the only purpose for "sex" is procreation.

As a side note to further the limited view of sex=procreation, consider the wee Bonobo - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo - who, obviously without consulting the Bible, has miraculously evolved to utilize sex as a greeting, tool for conflict resolution, and as a form of barter.

On the topic of abortion, there isn't much for me to add that hasn't been argued well on both sides. I shall only say that, for my part, I thank the Divine Source every day that, ultimately, the decision to have an abortion is never solely in the hands of those with a penis.

I'm sorry, but I find that incredibly insulting.

Dr.Ghastly wrote:
On the topic of abortion, there isn't much for me to add that hasn't been argued well on both sides. I shall only say that, for my part, I thank the Divine Source every day that, ultimately, the decision to have an abortion is never solely in the hands of those with a penis.

I'm sorry, but I find that incredibly insulting.

Yeah, I mean, what about she-males?

Dr.Ghastly wrote:
On the topic of abortion, there isn't much for me to add that hasn't been argued well on both sides. I shall only say that, for my part, I thank the Divine Source every day that, ultimately, the decision to have an abortion is never solely in the hands of those with a penis.

I'm sorry, but I find that incredibly insulting.

Unless, of course, Symbiotic is saying that their biological father wanted an abortion, but their biological mother didn't. That wouldn't be insulting, that would be a comment of genuine relief!

Symbiotic, I want to say that, thanks to your final paragraph there, I keep chuckling whenever the phrase "diplomatic relations" pops into my head now.