@SSReichsFuher:
I once made up a story, but people tell it like it's real, and i'm definitely real, i mean i'm posting on the internet. It goes like this, "Once i was hit on the head and everything became blurry, I saw what i can only describe as God and he/she/it - it was a God-thing s i can't really assign gender - told me that there was no afterlife, and that souls were a human creation to make us feel ok about dieing. That lots of people made them up because the thought of not existing anymore was so horrifying. Then he told me that we do exist, and time is a misconception because our bodies are too limited to expierence other dimensions, and space and time were actually very similar, but very few humans could get their tiny little minds around the concept, Einstien being the first who managed to describe it using the tools of mathematics, then i woke up in the hospital and was told i had a concussion from hitting my head"

I'm not refuting you, i'm just saying my story is just as interesting, and likely just as true.

@ SSReichsFuhrer:

That is an interesting dream that somebody told you that somebody had.

@ giapeep"it's not for me to decide, it's for the individual to decide."
It's very easy to say that if someone who is depressed should be able to choose if they die as it is their "human right" as you put it.
However people who are depressed often, by the very nature of depression, take a very pessimistic view on the chances of their life improving. They are irrational and in no condition to make choices regarding their future as important as killing themselves, when their "rational self" would not make such a decision.

There are many drug trials which can cure depression, and as you said, when combined friends can make a world of difference and people have come out of depression completely changed and thankful they weren't allowed to commit suicide.

Therefore we can't just allow them to commit suicide at the height of depression as their choice will be irrational and, in my view, deny the rational self that could emerge out of depression the chance to live a happy life.

@ Orathic, Ok, I'll respond more thoughtfully this time:

In your first post you write: "Single mothers without the choice of abortion may raise to the challenge and be better people for it. The children if they are successful in life may be much better people than those of us who were raised in other circumstances."

You're kidding, right?

Speaking of simplistic. The reality is not as you would like it to be. As I wrote, those single women who find themselves pregnant and see themselves in a position to rise to the occasion, will learn from the sacrifices (and sufferings) single motherhood brings. But this idea cannot be globalized to all mothers. I hate to inform you, but not all women want to be mothers at all nor are all women equipped, materially, mentally or emotionally to be mothers. The social proscriptions and not just the religious ones, as they stand at present are that all women (except perhaps gay women, which is bs as some of them want to be mothers and are as good or bad as the rest) want to be mothers, should be mothers. That's a whole lot of stigma to over come if you find yourself pregnant and locked into fear invoking beliefs and social imperatives.

I assure you that of the many mothers I've met, the ones who do not enter into motherhood willingly, even if not by mistaken pregnancy, are taking it out on the kids. Hell, many of the one's who do, for reasons of, say, so that they feel a legitimate part of society often begin to resent their children, especially when their kids are special needs. I've seen it, though oddly more in my mother's generation than in my own. Could the ability to choose abortion over an unwanted child be a factor, yes, yes it could.

Your own philosophy on the merits of suffering has some validity, as the Buddhists say, Life is Suffering,. You cannot say "suffering will make you stronger" to children and expect that the mental and emotional and developmental damage that factually arises from neglect and abuse, doesn't happen or can be over come. Once the wiring is set, it's rarely overcome fully and the stars would have to align mightily for that kind of healing. The damage of neglect is not a feeling, it's a measurable fact that is being seen in brain scans. In an unsupported environment a child will not have the centers of the brain responsible for empathy turned on. No empathy, no reason not to commit that crime, because they don't care for other's. They can't.

One reason we have religion is in an attempt to mediate the suffering of life, and most religions do not include or accommodate a feminine perspective, nor do our western social norms that were born from the Judeo-Christian belief system.Try explaining your philosophy to mis/under-educated women, who don't even know they have choices that will allow them to grow in our patriarchal society . They don't think that way and can't. Humanity still doesn't deal well with suffering, hence all the medicating with drugs, shopping, sex and entertainment...

As for your use of game theory, this only applies when individuals feel they are able to participate freely, I assure you women are still working for a level playing field, and until they have the freedom to choose without censure what is best for their bodies and their children, it is not a fair game.

For those who can contextualize their suffering, you're right they will become stronger for it. But really, even the most thoughtful of us struggle with that.

Your view is beyond simplistic, it naive.

So glad you volunteer, that matters, but it's also some what impersonal isn't it? You don't have to commit for a child's first 20 years, you don't have to make room in your personal life, beyond the hours that you have chosen to give; your volunteer work is about you, not the children or their struggling parents.. Keep on, I'm sure it helps.

@dave, how can you tell what is the rational self and what isn't?

Some medical opinions once held that as suicide was irrational it is a sign of poor mental health. So anyone who is contemplating suicide is unhealthy and needs to be fixed (and we now have drugs to do just that) Fine, but where do you draw the line? Some kids are over-active, do you give them drugs which dull their brain activity, and make them more sedate?

Victorian doctor were also of the opinion that healthy women didn't enjoy sex, and that only women who were mentally unhealthy (prostitutes, and nymphomaniacs) did. Also other criminals were consider to be 'sick'

How do you decide what is an irrational choice for another person to make?

@ dave bish

Interesting, and I agree the thoughts of a depressed person are not always rational or clear.

Not all cases of depression are easily treated by SSRI's , in fact there are many documented cases of suicide that is attributable to the medication itself.

Are you saying that those who suffer! mental illness should not be allowed to decide for themselves due to the defects of illness?

@orathic
It very well is just as interesting but it didnt have to do with abortion

@toby barthels
No it really hapened, i mean the fact that she died and came back. whether what went on while she was dead is possibly wrong

I agree with you that the views is expressed were entirely simplistic, that was the intention.

My volunteering is not entirely impersonal, i get to know the kids i work with, i act in loco parentis with them when we're away.

A lot of parents are very grateful when we take the kids away for two weeks in the summer for the time they have on their own. You're right I don't have to take on the responcibility of caring for a child for 20+ years, and i don't know if that is a choice i wil make in my life, but i do contribute to my community in some way, and yes it also makes me feel good. (By the way, i am a scout leader, and there a scouting movements almost everywhere)

The fact that some women feel pressured into having children may indeed be a societal problem which i've never come across. In our parents generation death in childbirth, and infant mortality rates were much higher, (as they are in some countries) It is not surprising that such pressures were applied (even by other women) for every healthy woman to procreate. These dynamics are now changing, at least in the developed world.


And i you're right about neglect too. It can be measured but who will become a neglectful parent depends entirely on he person, and while the statistics may show that single parents are more likely to struggle raising their children, this doesn't mean all single mothers-to-be should have abortions. (ok i know this isn't what you're saying AT ALL, but it is the extreme case of deciding that single parents will be neglectful and thus shouldn't be allowed to give birth)

Now, i freely admit that I am able to choose not to take on the responcibility of parenting. Without the option of abortion some women are not. In and ideal world which i would love to live in men and women would be entirely equal. This is not the world we live in today; I suppose your arguement have actually convinced me more than anything anyone else has written here to support a woman's right to choose.

Though others have and will state choosing to give a child up for adoption, or not have sex are always there as alternative to abortion.
I do think adopion is a very difficult thing for anyone to do. The maternal instinct is very strong, women's bodies probably produce chemicals in the brain to make them more caring (some cats exploit this fact: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8147566.stm )

I also think allowing men to have sex when and where they like, without consequences, while requiring women to abstain is horrible unfair. Furhter a healthy sex life is a normal part of adult human life. It should be encouraged (and whatever you do in the privacy of your bedroom with consenting adults is of no concern to the state)

Sorry, i forgot to mention, we do not live in an ideal world, and pretending men and women are equal is not going to make it so. I hate it when people ignore the differences, and this very biological difference is a case in point.

I would still like them to be as equal as possible as far as rights go, so perhaps the choice for a man to walk away should be extended to a woman (who still needs to walk up to an aboriton clinic before being able to walk away from the responcibility) - Of this you have convinced me.

but in this case, it is only fair to extend the right to keep a child, which the woman possesses should be extended to the father. Even though this means forcing the woman to go through childbirth. It is his DNA aswell, and the fundamental human right to procreation doesn't just apply to women. I am of the opinion that equality demands it.

@SSRF read Howard Storm's books. He was clinically dead and literally got a glimpse of hell (or so he claims). He was a confirmed athiest at the time and became a minister afterwards. He used to be my mother-in-law's minister and presided over my wife and I's renewal of our vows on a mission cruise to Belize. I have no doubt he truly believes what he says and writes, but I do question the reality of what a dying brain actually sees.

>No it really hapened, i mean the fact that she died and came back.

I believe you! I assume that (like Howard Storm) above, you mean that she was clinically dead, that her heart and lungs stopped. (If she were brain dead, then this would be medical news!) This is actually fairly common; it used to be that it was all over when that happened, but now they can often bring you back.

During clinical death, the brain is still active. People often report visions from that time (again, like Draugnar's example). But it's probably a little unfair of me to call these ‘dreams’, since they don't feel the same as dreams to the people that have them.

orthatic,
Thank You, you have paid me a high compliment today. Scout leaders rock by the way, but that's for people who can afford to put their kids in scouts, and let's face it for single parents, women especially who tend to get paid less -- not to mention are likely to have their children young and are further limited through lack of education (unless they are lucky enough to have their parent's support vs getting their slutty asses booted to the street, big belly and all), and it's the young ones who can make the mistakes that lead to surprise pregnancies more often than the older ones. Ah, the challenges of youth.


You write "And i you're right about neglect too. It can be measured but who will become a neglectful parent depends entirely on he person and while the statistics may show that single parents are more likely to struggle raising their children, this doesn't mean all single mothers-to-be should have abortions."

Your right, that's not what I was saying at all, in fact I made clear this kind of exception.

You say it's up to the person, assuming that person has a real choice I'd agree, but even those with the best intentions run into their limits when the love affair with the baby becomes the reality of guiding and growing a child, with it's own individual needs that are likely contrary to the parents' (ya ever seen a 3 year old in a supermarket meltdown?). And assuming that parent's brain at least got it's empathy wired up -- neglect can and does breed neglect.

What is a likely determinant, perhaps more than anything else, is a woman's choice and thus her power.If laws, norm, religion force her to have a child that she doesn't really want, the reality of the difficulties of parenthood work their way into her and she may not have the tools, financial, educational, social, emotional to treat that child with the care it needs to grow healthy. There is not a more challenging (and rewarding) responsibility on this earth and yet we have laws that prevent a woman's ability to choose it or not.

I too would like to live in a world where all genders are created equal, where the individual's ability to choose is supported and where ever child is nurtured into being healthy adults. Utopic ideals, but they sooth a the suffering a heart can bear.

And I agree, father's should have a choice in it too, but you know it's really rare for a man to have that kind of courage to make that choice -- not that it doesn't happen, but it's rare. And the mother is still reviled for walking away.

To better days, I raise my glass to your willingness to consider...

PS I have chosen not to have children, instead I am involved in the lives of 8, 4 of them on a regular basis and have helped in the lives of many other children as I can. This works well for me.

"it is only fair to extend the right to keep a child, which the woman possesses should be extended to the father. Even though this means forcing the woman to go through childbirth. It is his DNA as well, and the fundamental human right to procreation doesn't just apply to women."

As someone has strongly pro-choice I am as appalled by your position, as the anti-abortionists are by abortion. Of course I welcome your opinion :) It's just that I disagree.

At the point of conception that man is no more than a sperm donor. He does not own the women and has no right to dictate what she does with her body. The woman has so much tied up in the investment of creating life - the enormous physical changes to here body, the drain on her resources, the psychological implications etc. The male contributes a few molecules. This not make him a father and does not give him rights. The male may become a father through matching the female investment and as he does his rights grow. But at the point of conception his rights are virtually nil.
Indeed I would argue that if a women falls pregnant after a one-night stand or calls or a relationship early in the pregnancy that she should be able to decide whether the sperm donor will contribute to the process any further. That is if she choose to shut him out of the picture then that is her choice.

typo... As someone *who is strongly pro-choice....
(I really need to type more carefully)

@ spyman, good points to ponder.

Again it's the individual's who must decide for themselves assuming of course, they are able to choose.

I haven't jumped in on the gender equality thing yet because it can often make get very angry, but I will attempt to say my piece politely.

If women want to be entitled to complain about how men always leave them to raise children alone, then they should concede to the father equal say on whether or not to have an abortion. If they do not want to have to undergo a childbirth they didn't want just for the baby's father's sake, then they should not complain about paternal abandonment or ever attempt to seek child support from the father. The two positions cannot be combined. It's one or the other. Each is equal, but one must be chosen.

I would choose what orathaic suggests because it is more life affirming and because I would be glad to be a father, but that's only personal opinion. It's really up to women to decide which option best suits them. But the fact remains, they must decide.

Men can just walk away, and do, frequently.
On the issue of child support in the case of an unwilling father, you have a good point. I am not sure what the answer is. I think I lean towards the father having to pay support because it is unfair to burden the rest of society with the costs. But ideally I agree the male should be able to walk away - but when he does he must understand he is walking away from his paternal rights.

@ thucydides...

Cuz it's that simple is it? Your logic is full of fallacy and bias.

Men run off on women and children far far more often than they say, hey don't have that abortion I'll raise the child, you go off and do what you need to so that you can be the best mom you can be when you are ready.

I'm more inclined to concede to spyman's post, which allows for context: If it's a one night stand that created the pregnancy, then it's solely the woman's choice. Now, if that pregnancy is created in a relationship, than the man should have an equal say.

Are you saying that if a woman is impregnated via rape, she should carry that child to term and then hand it over to her rapist? And yes, rape happens in the context of a relationship-- an abusive one no doubt.

@ thucudides,
What is it about gender issues that makes you so angry? That's an interesting reaction, scarey too.

Rape is totally different issue. In the context of consensual sex, the father should either be able to A) have an equal say in whether or not the baby is aborted, or B) not have to pay child support, essentially be able to walk away no strings attached.

I support option A because fathers should have to pay child support not matter what in my opinion. But I would not support a law that mandates that they must unless there is also a law that mandates that they may decide whether or not they wish to see a pregnancy they helped create finished to term.

I think thucy might be a tiny bit misogynistic.

Gender issues make me angry because they are always biased and one sided. Feminists will not acknowledge that fact but I will. Chauvinists won't either. And that's why I hate both. Yes I said hate.

Men and women are different but complete each other and until every last man and woman realizes and accepts that, the world will be full of sorrow in the context of relations between the two sexes.

Absolutely not, I reject your assessment, spyman. The only kinds of people I dislike are people who characterize themselves by advocacy of a certain group or hatred of another certain group.

Chauvinists, feminists, racists, religious fanatics, nationalists, ageists, and elitists fall into those categories.

Gender issues are not always biased and one-side. There are plenty of perfectly reasonable and rational women in this world (although I must admit, at times, I am not sure if my own girlfriend is one of them). And there are plenty of rational feminists. Sure not all, but we humans don't always think clearly.

Sorry for saying that Thucy. I think you are good guy. I suspect though that you are quite young and possibly still figuring females out. I recall a little while ago you said you had sworn off women for a year.
I don't think you are a women hater.

Btw your age does not diminish the opinions you have expressed one little bit. You have made good arguments (I just disagree).

If you are ever talking about how one sex is better at one thing or deserves something that it doesn't have, then the issue has just become biased. That's the only thing I ever seem to hear out of those prejudiced by gender biases.

Lol the swearing off women thing has nothing to do with my views on them. It's as much for their good as mine, and it's a personal choice.

I'm talking about rights here, not behavior. I could be an alien with no gender at all and what I was saying would still be true. It is just another "us vs. them" so I am against that kind of categorization.