Agnostic.com

19 11

"I am Pro-Life, but I am Pro-Humanity too." - Arkansas Republican
State Rep Dan Douglas

This man deserves a medal for his bravery.

I'm actually Pro-Choice.

I try not to get too much into these topics.

Personally, I only support abortion in cases such as rape, incest, or if the mother or baby's life is in danger.

I realise that no matter what side you or I are on, ultimately; it should always be the woman's choice. No law should intervene.

[m.facebook.com]

SleeplessInTexas 8 Apr 23

Post a comment Reply Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

19 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

Consenting to sex does not mean consenting to being pregnant, which is why one can choose to take preventive measures (that aren't always successful).

Pro choice is the most humane position, under any circumstances.

1

My position. I wish I lived in a world where abortion was not necessary. Where all children were accepted, protected, caredfor and loved by society. Utopian idealism I know.

3

I applaud him for speaking up due to his own personal circumstances, but it never ceases to boggle my mind that people have such a narrow view of what constitutes a danger in the lives of mothers or babies and society in general. In this World Health Organization article "Unsafe abortion: the preventable pandemic" it states:

"Access to safe, legal abortion is a fundamental right of women, irrespective of where they live. The underlying causes of morbidity and mortality from unsafe abortion today are not blood loss and infection but, rather, apathy and disdain toward women." [who.int]

Women who chose to have abortions seem far more ethical and rational than those who either want to ban abortion or limit the reasons. I'm just going to scratch the surface as to the lack of awareness when it comes to bringing unwanted children into the world.

There are an estimated 153 million children worldwide who are orphans (UNICEF). Abortion was banned (except for a few exceptions) in Romania for 2 decades by communist leader Nicolae Ceausescu. The results were a proliferation of children in institutions. These children endured terrible conditions, physical and sexual abuse, starvation and general neglect. After the fall of the dictators, these institutions were visited by journalists and healthcare professionals. In 1990, ABC’s investigative unit, 20/20, visited orphanages and described seeing “babies stacked on the shelves of a cart like loaves of bread.”Most of the children end up with severe mental illnesses such as attachment disorders. The country’s ban killed 9,000 women. [medium.com]

cont.

A long-term study found that most of these children who were eventually adopted to loving homes in other countries still had/have severe mental health problems in adulthood, even after intensive therapy. Another study: “Critical research, however, has portrayed orphanages as a breeding ground for psychopathology.” [researchgate.net] Yet another study: "Child violence experiences in institutionalised/orphanage care" [tandfonline.com]

According to the most recent federal data, there are currently more than 400,000 children in foster care in the United States. Most are under the age of 5. Disabled children can remain in institutionalized care for life. Young adults raised in institutions are 500 times more likely to kill themselves. The U.S. foster care system is dysfunctional. Further studies show that most of the children living in foster care systems become psychologically damaged.

"Languishing in foster care harms children’s wellbeing in a number of ways. The longer a child remains in temporary care, the more likely he or she will experience multiple placement changes and the disrupted relationships caused by such changes.

Studies suggest that as many as 70 percent of placement changes have nothing to do with improving the wellbeing of the children moved.

Disruptions make it difficult for children to form the kind of stable attachments that undergird healthy social and emotional development. This is an especially grave concern for children ages five and under – by far the largest group of children in foster care – given the critical role that strong and stable early life attachments play in healthy human development.

For children of all ages, multiple changes in placements often lead to severe, long-term behavior and emotional problems.

A much more widespread problem is that children in foster care don’t get the services they need, and many wind up dropping out of school, pregnant, or incarcerated. (The outcomes would be far worse and tragedy more common if those children came from orphanages.) Foster care is neglected and underfunded." [theconversation.com]

There are 69 million children worldwide who suffer from malnutrition. Nearly half of all deaths in children under the age of 5 can be attributed to undernutrition. [sos-usa.org]

If he was really pro-humanity, he'd be pro-choice.

@VictoriaNotes
Thank you!!!

There are no rational reasons why a woman should not be allowed to control her body and fertility. The only excuses have been paternalistic, myth based religions and emotional. Unfortunately, much of our views of the world are shaped by emotions and even science based groups as WHO can seem to change that.

@JackPedigo Can or can't?

@VictoriaNotes Maybe I'm missing something but both seem applicable. Perhaps, can't is clearer.

@JackPedigo You started out with "Unfortunately" followed by "and even" so wasn't sure.

@VictoriaNotes Exactly, and, to me it is negative and can't makes a double negative. But can't still fits. Thanks for pointing this out.

1

The leading cause of abortion is the ongoing myth of sexual morality.

1

No one else's opinion matters when a woman is making this decision for herself. It matters not what other people believe about abortion. It is a personal matter and no one else should have a say about the decision a woman makes regarding abortion.

2

I am pro-life but I am pro-choice also. The decision to abort any pregnancy is the sole responsibility of the woman.

3

My belief is simple: if you are against abortion, don't have one. Otherwise, what business is it of yours what kind of medical care a woman, any woman, receives?

1

I can understand a woman being frightened and worried about how she is going to take care of a child and make a painful decision to abort the baby because she thinks she has no other alternatives and really feel bad about doing it. However, I don't understand these women who are proud of having an abortion and think you should flaunt it around. If it has to be done then so be it but its not something you should be proud of doing.

I am 79 yrs old and never in my life time, have I heard one woman flaunt having an abortion. On the contrary, they did not want to discuss it much. Now, I am a woman’s, woman...they sure have reported being raped in many numbers!

@Freedompath You should see some in the Pro-Abortion marches with shirts on saying they are proud to have an abortion. I know this is the minority but there are some out there.

What, how many women have you met that are "proud and flaunting" this? I have never in my life met one. If you have red it somewhere than I doubt that it is correct.

@abyers1970 that is not flaunting abortion...a person with a sign has taken a stand and is supporting others who have the same need! A women should have dominion over her own body, period! And, until a man has been pregnant, he should stay in his lane!

5

I think we should call it Pro-Woman. Because honestly, the people who are against it are not Pro-Life, they are Anti-Woman.

4

How can one be pro-choice but with limitations? Either are or are not. The 'pro-life' name is a misnomer. It is pro-human life. The fact is that the more of us there are the fewer other species there are. We are living in the sixth great extinction era, the anthropocene. We need to stop glorifying human beings because in doing so we are sealing our eventful fate (which we will deserve).

4

His "bravery"???

Sorry. From where I am with this, there are no "sides".
It's no one's business what any woman does with her own body.
It doesn't matter how anyone feels about abortion. What anyone else
does is no one else's business.

This shouldn't even be a debate. No one has the right to "weigh in".
The government is sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong.
The religious are sticking their noses where they don't belong.
If anyone is against abortion, that's their right, but they don't get a say
in what anyone else does.
Mind your own fucking business, and this ain't it.

No woman should ever be forced to have an abortion.
No woman should ever be forced to gestate a pregnancy she doesn't want.
For ANY reason.

I don't understand why anyone would think they even have a right to an opinion
on what any woman does regarding her own reproductive health.
It's not your business.
Never will be either.

2

I'm pro-life and pro-choice. I don't see a conflict, do you?

Why isn't there a pro-abortion group?

0

He makes a strong point and provides a great example. Even though it didn't work in Arkansas, the message may still carry elsewhere.

2

The two 'sides' of this issue are both extremist and disingenuous. Over the last 50 years of close observation, they've both grown to be even more strident and ideologically rigid. How could one expect otherwise when the very names they use limit the scope of understanding , if not down right confuse it?

Just by mutually agreeing (the only thing they agree on) that there are ONLY two sides, the extremist mis-leaders maintain control between themselves with all the mental cattle following. Individual, humane consideration that respects bodily sovereignty while protecting both the woman and potential child isn't even considered because there is no way to do that, let alone even discuss it, within either fanatic 'cause'.

Watching this over the decades is like watching a carousel that rotates with greater speed every time you look at it, but still goes nowhere.

I must disagree on ‘both sides...extremist,’...being a rape victim myself, in a supposedly civilized society, which cannot be compared to rape in war...which goes beyond my comprehension! ALL, need comprehensive mental and physical attention...denigrating a woman at the core of her nature, is no simply thing!

@Freedompath Consider being more generous with things appearing to be 'beyond your comprehension'. For you, understandably, this very broad issue is viewed through the personal prism of having been victimized and damaged. Though valid, the frame of reference isn't sufficiently broad enough to include other equally valid concerns for women and, incidentally, the other even more damaged half of humanity that happens to be dominating and poisoning every society on the planet.

To paraphrase another slogan.. Women's lives matter alright, but all lives matter no less and no more. We can have a system that protects privacy and bodily sovereignty for all, not exclusively women and NOT dominated by males. Unfortunately, neither you nor I will still be around to see it.

I also disagree. A woman having an ability to control her body is not an extreme side (except for many males). No entity is human until it can survive on it's own. Until then it is a collection of cells with a potential direction. Aspects that are continually missed are what chances does this new life have for a successful life? Is this a wanted or loved child? What does this child's birth mean for the parents future? And the most important one of all, will this addition to an already heavily overpopulated species add or subtract to the continued evolution of all life (not just human). The answer to that last one is it will only contribute to the continued eradication of species, natural resources, wars (possibly even nuclear), starvation, pandemics, suffering, increase of the negative effects of Climate Change and perhaps (for the benefit of the planet) our own demise. Lastly, no male should have an opinion on a women's right over her own body. We have had that so far and look how we have abused that.

@JackPedigo 'A woman having an ability to control her body', I agree is certainly not extreme. That, however, isn't what the 'pro-choice' extremists are about. It is only thier propaganda, just like the disingenuous position of so-called 'pro-life' hypocrites claiming reverence for human life.

A woman's right tomake decisions regarding her body is the smoke screen and false billing. What is extreme isn't the phony 'wordsmanship' used by both sides, but their respective blindness to anything that doesn't comport with their dictated narrative; their hallucinating about motives and positions unstated that they conjure when a word or two expressed about the issue by an 'outsider' triggers them to spew the mush they are spoon-fed by trusted, pathogenic leaders.

Solutions are so far beyond your anecdotal and hypothetical examples and those of the "pro-life" automata as well, that there is little hope for the future. That is a tragedy for all families, women and men. Sorry, I can't give ya that ol' time relijun on either "side".

@Silver1wun you had too much intellectual jargon for me too follow....we are addressing ‘rape of women,’ here...violence bestowed upon her because of her vagina! Sure all humans should be treated with dignity, at least respect for being human. Rape...is specific, and sure it can happen to men, and that too deserves the same attention!

@Freedompath Sorry Freedompath, please reread the post. It is broader (as I've already pointed out) than your frame of reference. It includes it but is not LIMITED to it or by it. FOR YOU, it is about 'rape of women'. You are free to make it about that limited dimension if you choose. I understand in more ways than you are probably aware, just why.

Though I sympathize, sympathy isn't a reason to allow you to limit the scope as your personal grandstand. That my 'jargon' is too much for you to follow is obvious but even that doesn't license you to dictate to me the scope of this conversation nor the issue itself.

@Silver1wun you should be a woman...I think as a man you may have a blind spot where we are concerned.

@Silver1wun Since there are only conjectures and no real examples I can't go along. I once took a position toward pro-life but later learned that this position was extremely one-sided and wrong. I left the church and got involved in the environmental movement and my eyes were opened. I admitted I was only seeing one side. Since joining this group and having such discussions I have learned things about a long term relationship and my late-partner I didn't know. One partner was alcoholic and it was in her family. She did not want to have a child for fear of her passing on to another what she had to endure. I am sure she would have gotten an abortion if she had ever gotten pregnant. My late partner had 2 abortions. I asked her about this and got an inconclusive answer. Now I understand her husband forced himself on her throughout their marriage.

The big problem is that things often get to such a point that only be going to another extreme can people finally wake up to what is going on. It wasn't until the OJ Simpson case that people woke up to domestic violence and, yes, it did get to an extreme. I got caught up in that extreme and suffered a false accusation which was, after a lot of work, eventually thrown out. We need to start paying attention to problems before they escalate. Right now the problem of pedophile clergy (not just priests) shows how that still doesn't seem to work.

@Silver1wun I re-read the post, and I must report that in my mind I mixed this post in with the UN resolution on Violence against women, that I had just read. But I will say, in my 79 yrs, the extremist are on the anti- abortion side...blowing up clinics and killing doctors! I call that extreme, ON ONE SIDE!

@Silver1wun on my ‘personal grandstand,’ what does that mean? You are on your personal grandstand here...why is mine ‘less,’ in the big picture, than yours?

@Freedompath There is no reason for me to be a woman in order to apply reasoning to anything. As a matter of fact, like all males, I've been female but not for very long. By limiting I mean not allowing you or anyone else to define my positions on things based on group-think triggering and gross assumptions. I'm definitely NOT a member of either group. I do, however, support positions taken by both groups, depending on the question at hand. This is called independent reasoning and thinking. Group identity clouds it at best and completely neutralizes it a worst.

When agreeing with the pro-life herd, as often as not, it is for reasons that differ with their group reason. The same can be said of sharing a position with the pro-choice mob. What is darkly humorous is how members of both group identities automatically equate agreement with membership and/or shared motives; in likewise fashion disagreement causes automatic judgment that one belongs to 'that insideous other group'. When I disagree it is also more times than not, for different reasons than those with whom the disagreement is shared. But reasons aligned or not,don't really matter as long as they originate with the individual creating the thought process that so often places them in odious company.

Freedompath, yours is less because you make it less; not I. We agree that things like violence against women and children, including rape are a very important aspect of the overall issue. That a woman (all people to me) should control her body and have it protected by law, we also agree on. In other areas I'm CERTAIN that we strongly align in our points of view. That does NOT make me a member of your 'ism' or group. Call it outsider support because I can't tolerate either recipe cooked-up and spoon fed by corrupt, inhumane,politically motivated leaderships of both camps.

New thought has never been controlled by emotion nor born of it; only motivated and fueled by it. How one feels, on the carousel will never cause the riders of it to get anywhere. They must first recognize that they are going in a perpetual circle and admit that the ride is taking them nowhere: like the definition of stupidity: doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different outcome. I call it, not stupidity but abdication of faculties in exchange for comforting ignorance.

Potential child is just a figment of imagination.

@Jolanta It is linguistic and scientific fact. It is a state of existence between infancy and adulthood. There are acknowledged differences among different groups and differing legal authorities about when exactly it begins and ends. 'In utero' existence is considered by some extremists to be part of childhood and argued by other extremists as pre-childhood. I happen, as usual, to agree with one group on the designation that it is pre-childhood. An unborn is only potentially a child until it actually becomes a child. Physiologically, even after partum, a newborn is still gestating. The difference is only environmental and geographic. Legally, it is quite another disputed issue.

I want to thank you, Freedompath and Jack for presenting your parts of this discussion so well. You clearly demonstrate precisely what I've been talking about. Though a foil is seldom moved to change their thinking, especially when it is static, y'all benefit those reading our exchanges with your examples. Some of them will cheer-on one 'side' or other and some will find our exchanges illucidating and THEY will be moved to re-think and expand.

@Jolanta This statement applies to all who subscribe to thought recipes contrived and issued by others, yet represented by consumers as 'native product'.

@Silver1wun sorry you are making no sense to me...you are trying to straddle the fence so you don’t need to take sides. And you can stay there, but as a women all my life and studied men and their operating skills or not...you still cannot speak for a woman or women...the same as I would not try and speak for a man, other than for the same human emotions that we each have. Just my two cents here, but you speak like a person that has read a lot about the abortion issues, but have little if any personal experience that you can bring to the table. I believe that is the reason I cannot connect to your train of thought...some key element is missing for me. I am no expert but I have lots of personal experience about female issues and abortion. People tell me their stories...and I educate myself on all human issues, ‘cause that is just what I have always done. I just know for certain...there are NOT extremes on both sides. I myself have never been extreme in any way, I take each incident individually and find out all the details that I can...even when other people have passed on by, I will still be taking in everything around me! That does not make be better or smarter, but I assure you, I will see things that others missed! And I believe something is missing from your response to me. What I do not know?

@Silver1wun I did have one thought on why I am not connecting in ‘your ball park’...you are coming from a position of authority...without the AUTHORITY...in your response I expect some Scientific data, along with all your certainty. So I am left feeling empty from something that should be most important!

@Freedompath You and I are a bit advanced in ages to make broad, judgments about what is in the hearts and minds of others, save by their actions over time in differing circumstances and 'community' identity if they claim loyalty to one or some. What we're presenting here are points of view. Mine was expressed about the 'abortion issue' in the popular sense and what drones on about it in common public discourse.

We are not obliged to substantiate our opinioins with what others might consider science or Biblical or other so-called authoritative sources. (Read the meme above) Taking strongly supportive position of advocacy on a question is hardly what can be called 'straddling the fence'. I take strong positions based on personal, NOT GROUP, pedgree, authority for the reasoning behind them.

IWhen a law applies to all and not some; when it makes no prejudicial exceptions or exemptions before applicationit can effect optimal 'justice' and protections. In an egalitarian, self-governing, secular society with laws protecting everyone's natural and civil rights, there should be no need of distinction between which category of person deserves preference.

The so-called abottion tug of war has nothing to do with dedication to choice or life. That is window dressing. Inside the store is where the political and ideological war is prosecuted. It is a war, like most, of conquest and power, with many deluded soldiers. As rape is an important part of the abortion issue, abortion is an important part of the greater issue, filled with evern more emotion.

Question: When, under what circumstances and how does homicide become an acceptable solution to a perceived challenge to livelihood and/or survival? That question transcends all of the related issues. Secondly, once it is agreed that homicide IS acceptable depending on circumstances, WHO gets to determine the criteria socially, morally and most important, legally? Both alleged sides of the smaller abortion question AGREE that circumstances arise variously wherein homicide is acceptable.

Both sides also differ greatly within their agreement on the criteria. The, constantly evolving body of local and Federal laws over my lifetime disclose this war if one perceives them functionally. Abortion is merely part the larger question of bodily sovereignty vs. the common interests of society at large, in which we all possess a vital stake. 'Captial Punishment, Abortion, War, Assassinations, Self-Defense, Defending another who's life you believe to be in immanent jeopardy, Infanticide after partum, Mercy Ending of Life are all forms of homicide. Murder, as emotionally as it is thrown about, is homicide. As an act of homicide that is must also be unlawful.

You want science? How about fundamental biology? A zygote posessing 46 chromosomes, demonstrating the life process is a living specimen of our human species at the earliest stage. To terminate it by any means is homicide. I see no conflict between that biological fact and my support of any woman as a 100% sovereign of her body at all times.. Pregnancy termination happens both spontaneously and intentionally; her business. Is that position /straddling'?

We qualify as citizens of this society, by law, two ways. 1. Being born of American parent/s 2. Via naturalization. LIke it or not. Argue we may. Those are the only way the state has provided to become a 'person'. The process of birth/ introduction ends the pregnancy as partum certified as 'live'. That's it. It is a process over which society, therefore has some degree of purview, however minor.

Birth isn't an end of gestation but merely a continuation of it. It just happens to be where the law has drawn a sort of 'infranational ' port of entry. So, before some arbitrary stage of internal gestation what is mis-titled abortion is more accurately induced birth; that because the separation doesn't necessarily result in homicide. Being 'born alive' by Constitutional definition is the starting point of being a citizen and member of society.

Just as strongly as I argue in support of ANY person's bodily sovereignty and right to live, I also strongly assert that termination of a pregnancy when life outside is viable with normal incubation and nourishment is reasonably eligible for a measure of social and legal purview. It's the process, not the woman/parents. This is also not fence sitting and is only one facet of the complex of related conflicts.

@Silver1wun I am sorry, I cannot understand this ‘double speak’...and I do not speak FOR others and I am not able to understand your position! What it seems to me is ...you are attempting to solve the ‘worlds problems,’ and the focus here was on abortion, about which you have never had one! Right off the bat... you are taking both sides...second... you didn’t approve of the ‘group think,’ and finally, the individuals themselves were the problem! ....Sir find your own level...i ain’t it!

@Freedompath We certainly agree on those points Freedompath. I knew you'd eventually 'come around'.

The point is that people who use their grey matter as individuals will find themselves on both sides at different times because recipes are personal but just as valid as ordering from the menu.

@Silver1wun I can’t find a way, using the information that you presented...! Why are you still trying to get ‘one up?’

@Silver1wun I think you should write a book on this subject, not sure whether anybody but you would understand it fully though.

@Jolanta Thank you. It is a rather lonely place to be most of the time. Wouldn't trade it for membership identity with 'isms' for anything. Also, often feels like the saying 'what has been seen (understood) cannot be unseen'.

4

It was a good speech. Too bad it had no effect.

7

I agree. I like most people have an opinion, and like every other guy in the world; mine doesn't mean shit. That said, I think the final decision should be based on the best available scientific and medical knowledge not ancient books of fairytales.

JimG Level 8 Apr 23, 2019
7

I have to agree..,it is a woman’s choice. My own ex-deceased mother-in-law, told me after I married her son like 60 yrs ago, that she used a coat hanger to abort. By the time I was in the picture, she had been operated on 5-6 times, but I never thought back then to ask if all those operations were related. One was a hysterectomy and at that time she would have been less than 40, (they had been sharecroppers).

4

Planned Parenthood I believe in. "Abortion clinics" not so much. These 2 are not the same and the right of a woman to have control over her own body is a must. When you make statements that women are using abortion as birth control you go down the rabbit hole of religion. It's plain and simple and yet, the bible said nothing about it.

The religious element, must have been promoting that idea, because that is what one of my daughters tried to sell to me! I had never heard that in all of my years in religion. The far-right, don’t have a problem bending the truth, in order for things to go their way!

The problem is that many people do not understand the difference and think that PP is just an abortion clinic.

@itsmedammit The problem is that too many people think they have a right to interfere with their opinions, as ignorant and uninformed as they may be.
It doesn't matter what anyone thinks. It's none of their business.

9

I wish you could spend a day working with me at Planned Parenthood. You'd be stunned at the stories I hear.

Only the people who care, will listen...the rest (religious zealots) are ‘stove up in god!’ It has been drummed into them...’it goes against god’s will,’ they care little about the person, who is pregnant!

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:336082
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.