The journey from there to here

We've all seen the sitcom scenario. Junior trashes the family car then tries to hide the damage from the cheap auto repair. But try as he might he cannot hide the damage and the car is irrevocably scarred, even worse than it was when Junior ran it into the utility pole. Junior now faces consequences FAR worse than he would have faced had he simply faced up to the music.

LW wrote a wonderful heart rending article that tells this story from a woman's perspective. One who has been there. One who KNOWS. You can read about it here (https://forums.joeuser.com/?forumid=17&aid=156393#1245882).

Of course, the fallout was predictable. Poster after poster decrying how horrible it was to "punish" a woman for getting pregnant.

Well, despite what you've heard, most abortions are elective and performed for reasons of "convenience". Women trying to evade the consequences of (NOT Punishment for) their actions.

Now here's where I don the flameproof suit: I believe very firmly that any parent who sees a child as a "punishment" for having sex is unfit to be a parent. Any parent who believes their children to be a burden, a sentence, should be relieved of the burden of having them in the first place (that is, in the idyllic world where we ride unicorns and eat ice cream beside the Big Rock Candy Mountain). There is, of course, no conscionable way to legislate this, and thus people who hold such hateful, spiteful views of children and childhood will be able to keep procreating as they should, but it is a pity that such children need to be raised in homes where their parents view them as a burden rather than a blessing.

We won't even touch the issue of welfare for the children who are born here, and I don't want that tangent on this article. That is a tangential issue and I am stating right now the promise to delete the comments of anyone who tries to detour it in that direction. You want to discuss that? Here's a primer:

  • Go to the JoeUser main page
  • Click "Create New Article"
  • Spew garbage to your heart's content

Now, back on track. Like junior, parents who relieve themselves of the "burden" of children will find themselves with irreperable, irrevocable damage that no amount of antidepressants will erase. The kind of nightmares that oddly don't appear in Planned Parenthood or NARAL flyers. And people who counsel these parents to rid themselves of the burden are nothing short of deplorable; they will not have to face the consequences for those who follow their lousy advice.


Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Jun 30, 2007
I understand your point, while also firmly believing that it is wrong to "force" a woman to have a baby.


I don't see it as force to expect a woman to deal with the consequences of her behaviour, shades. To "force" a woman to have a baby would, in my opinion, require impregnating her against her will, and in cases where that happens (rape, incest, etc) I will readily concede abortion as the lesser of several evils. While I do admire women who choose to keep their babies regardless, I feel that asking a woman to have that baby sets an impossible moral standard for her, one that I am not sure I could live up to if I were in those shoes.

My personal view, as you probably know, is that abortion should be legal but that public funds should not be used. I believe there are enough women's advocacy groups out there that could handle the funding if it were truly needed. And if the money had to come out of THEIR pockets, they would not be so eager to push abortion as some of them most assuredly are.
on Jun 30, 2007
I have only had a cursory look at DirecTV's services but couldn't find any internet--which at the time had left me wishing I had Dish (that and they show current episodes of Eastenders, a Brit soap I LOVE!!). I also haven't found a wireless company that will install without having DSL first. I think I might call Verizon and see if they will allow me to have dry-loop DSL (without the phone). I know they allow it in businesses (we have it at work) but I don't know if they would allow it for residential. The entire county is meant to go wireless in the next year or two and there is a community center about 500 feet down the hill so I would imagine I would be able to get on to that service -- but it would mean biding my time for a while.

If you have any ideas, I'm all ears!
on Jun 30, 2007
I don't see it as force to expect a woman to deal with the consequences of her behaviour, shades. To "force" a woman to have a baby would, in my opinion, require impregnating her against her will, and in cases where that happens (rape, incest, etc)


I suppose a better wording would have been "force" her "to carry the pregnancy to term" rather than "have a baby" -- but I do understand your point.

What's your stance on private health insurance covering abortions?
on Jun 30, 2007
What's your stance on private health insurance covering abortions?


I believe that insurance companies should be allowed to opt out of abortion coverage, but that such exclusions should be clearly stated in their policy so there's no grey area. I honestly think only a minority of insurance companies would opt out, but they should have the choice.

on Jun 30, 2007
That seems fair.
on Jun 30, 2007

 

 

Reply By: little-whipPosted: Friday, June 29, 2007

All that aside, Meg, have I told you lately that I love you?

(and i still need you to email me with your new snailmail addy, i've lost it and i have something i want to send, damnit.)

I love her too, AND i HAVE BOTH HER SNAIL MAIL ADDRESSES, whcih I will gladly sell you for the price of DA> DA> DAAAAAA one bazillion kisses when we meet.

on Jun 30, 2007
LOCAMOMA POSTS:
I don't equate not going through with a pregnancy and killing a child. Not at all.


AND GIDEON POSTS:
No, of course. If you don't CALL it murder, it doesn't sound so bad!


AND THEN GIDEON SAYS:
My personal view, as you probably know, is that abortion should be legal but that public funds should not be used.


So, murder of an unborn should be legal as long as it's not paid for by public funds?
on Jun 30, 2007
So, murder of an unborn should be legal as long as it's not paid for by public funds?


Lula,

I already stated I see it as the lesser of several evils in certain limited circumstances (specifically, rape and incest). I still don't like it, I still would prefer there were better alternatives, but I don't feel that it is my place to demand that a woman bear to term the product of a nasty, vile, violent acts such as rape. In a perfect world, there would be no abortion, of course, but in a perfect world rape and incest wouldn't exist either.

The problem arises when we limit abortion to ONLY cases of rape and incest. For one, it would add to the trauma of rape to demand that the victim go through a legal procedure to have an abortion. For another, it would probably increase the number of false accusations by women who accuse the fathers of their babies so that they can have an abortion. Neither outcome is a good one.

You may not agree with my position, lula...but in an imperfect world, sometimes we need to make certain compromises we never would make in an ideal situation.
on Jun 30, 2007
Thanks, Gideon, for responding. Now that you mention it, I do recall reading that you mentioned agreeing with abortion in the so called 'hard' cases of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest.

You're also correct in that I do not agree with your position. Yours shows no compassion or protection whatsoever for the second victim, the one who makes the ultimate sacrifice. It makes sense to punish the rapist but none whatsoever to give capital punishment to the innocent baby.

I offer the following for your consideration.

Perhaps the women most vulnerable to societal pressure are those who are pregnant as a result of the vile and degrading crime of rape or incest. The revulsion everyone feels at the crime and wanting 'justice' for the victim had led to the general attitude that abortion is the best way if it were our wife, sister, or good friend.

Your pro-abortionism in this case is to spare the mother emotional and physical burden of carrying the baby to term. The question that we must ask ourselves is: is the murder of an innocent human being to relieve the suffering of another ever justified?

Even though inpregnated through rape, the pregnancy itself isn't a disease. It's part of nature and carrying out the pregancy and giving the baby up for adoption is the very best win-win scenario.

While the abortion is intended to remove emotional distress, etc., there is overwhelming evidence that the abortion itself actually adds emotional, phychological and even physical distress. That's right, we have enough known cases that show that the abortion actually aggravated and complicated the women's problems.

In short, the indignity of rape and incest is not helped by adding the guilt and harmful medical consequences of an abortion and punishment to the child by killing him. Consequences and punishment, something to think about indeed.
on Jun 30, 2007
In short, the indignity of rape and incest is not helped by adding the guilt and harmful medical consequences of an abortion and punishment to the child by killing him. Consequences and punishment, something to think about indeed.


Again, in an ideal world, I would agree 100%, lula. This area ia a very, very tough one, and there are no easy answers.

I don't think it's fair to say that I "agree" with abortion in cases of rape or incest. More fair to say that I concede them as choices that may have some merit in a very trying time. If I were giving counsel, I would always want to explore possibilities that would respect the life. But when thinking about laws in a nation of laws, we must legislate even to those who don't hold the same values as you or I do.

I think you would be surprised how quickly abortion dried up if we cut funding. The reason it's so common now is because there's IMMENSE profit in it (ironic that so many complain about the oil companies' profits, yet ignore record profits from an industry that is supposed to be non-profit!). Cut off the money trail and abortion will dry up without having to sign a single bill into law.
on Jun 30, 2007
Your pro-abortionism


And I definitely don't think it's fair to call me a pro-abortionist. Certainly PP and NARAL would disagree with you...lol!
on Jun 30, 2007
And I definitely don't think it's fair to call me a pro-abortionist.


Touche!


It tickles my fancy that you don't like the name-calling!!
on Jun 30, 2007
You got it, Elie...and (rolls eyes at meg)...aren't you supposed to call me tomorrow anyway?
Reply By: little-whipPosted: Saturday, June 30, 2007
  nope yer spose to call me before you get drunk or stoned.
on Jun 30, 2007
It tickles my fancy that you don't like the name-calling!!


Not when it's an inappropriate label, lula!

2 Pages1 2