Ask a Pro Life Pagan

[Medusa]

Re: Ask a Pro Life Pagan

Is there any compelling need to invoke Godwin's law this early Anunito?

I was so hoping we could just ignore that. I like this thread.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Ask a Pro Life Pagan

Now I'm not trying to be snarky, because we all know my bluntness can come off that way. But why can't the decisions be left for ME to decide? I don't need the govt nor the state nor my next door neighbor deciding what I can decide for myself. I know what I want for me. And it's different then what you want for me. So I think my rule over my body is the right answer. I doubt you'd want me ruling for your body, now would you?

Yup - you think what you want, and I think what I want.

[MaskedOne]

Re: Ask a Pro Life Pagan

I was so hoping we could just ignore that. I like this thread.

Anunito decided he doesn't particularly care to continue the analogy, I've got no urgent desire to keep the issue in the limelight atm if he doesn't. Anything past that isn't my call.

[Dez]

Re: Ask a Pro Life Pagan

Corbin, what is your call about pregnancies that pose risk to the mother? What about those which may pose tragic hardship on the family?


In context; after developing copper poisoning from an IUD last fall, including throwing up and having my hair start to fall out, my only remaining option other then condoms is a perminant solution. We can't afford that right now...we'll have to see how it goes once one of us has health insurance out here in CA, but in ID the doctor, hospital, and anesthesiologist all wanted at least 10% of their bill up front, totaling a couple thousand dollars.

So if we slip up right now? Well...any child I have has a 50% chance of getting my clotting disorder, meaning I could miscarry at any point in a pregnancy, or end up with a disabled child if a clot ends up in their placenta. We are still paying off my daughter's birth, over five years later, and it is a giant black mark on our limited credit. Due to my health, my son was a more then $10,000 baby.

We can't go through that again. We have lived well below the poverty line our entire marriage, and are only now having a chance to even hint at a light at the end of the tunnel. If we slipped up, it would tear me apart, but I could do not feel like it would be right to jeopardize that. I have to think of my ability to feed and clothe my existing children. And with my medical problems, even if I were willing to accept the risk of another pregnancy, no one in their right mind would be willing to help us pay for that birth.

It's for those reasons that, although my stance is very similar to yours(especially about trying to reduce the number of abortions, education, etc), I just don't feel comfortable making that call.

[B. de Corbin]

THISACTUAL social problems away - so THATEVERWANTED fetus has, say, a heart defect which will require expensive surgery and hospitalization right after birth.

Eventually, we will get some kind of national health care in this country.

If the standard, accepted, and economical treatment for costly fetus-related medical problems is abortion, what do you suppose your national health care is going to push you into?

As much as I dislike the idea of elective abortion, the idea of a family being forced to abort a wanted child because of economic necessity and a politically motivated forced choice is far, far worse.

Better choices?

Anyone?

Anyone?

[Dez]

Re: Ask a Pro Life Pagan

I really appreciated your post Corbin, and I know your humor well enough that it made me smile.

Part of what I find very striking, is that while you consider yourself pro-life, and I consider myself pro-choice, in practice our stances are pretty much the same. It seems to me me to be another example of how our nation tends to opperate in extremes right now.

People tend to assume that being pro-choice means that someone is casual about the life of a child. That they don't consider it a difficult, painful choice. Now granted, the biggest difference between our stances is that I do not believe in life at conception, but consider the defining moment to be when the fetus begins to self regulate around 12-15weeks, often the point at which many pregnancies naturally terminate due to a problem, anyway. That was a conscious choice for me, in order to cope with the grief of the two miscarriages that I have had...it was honestly harder for me, personally, to consider them to be the same as a small infant. To do so would have driven me even deeper into depression at the time, and made me feel responsible for something that I had no control over. In an ideal world, I believe that abortion should be available at any stage at the discretion of someone's doctor, HOWEVER, unless there are very serious extenuating circumstances, that is a decision that should be made in the first trimester, at the second at the very latest(due to medical reasons seems reasonable, since that's when many tests are able to be done), and during the third strikes me as horrific....at that point unless it was truly to save the life of the mother, adoption really should be the preferable option. It's just too late and the mother has had a very long time to think about this.

I agree that prevention should be more available. It's terrifying to me that you have the extreme right trying to ban abortion period( including in cases where the mother's life is at stake, the child is stillborn, etc.), and is trying to ban things like the morning after pill. That right there is part of why I am very grateful for you making this thread; it's an important reminder that those nutcases are NOT the only voice of the pro-life movement, even if they claim they are.

I wouldn't be surprised if part of the reason why many of the people participating in this thread consider themselves pro-choice is because of those crazies. Because for someone like me, it is terrifying that I could have my insurance refuse to pay for the only form of birth control I can use, because my employer finds it morally wrong. That due to having PCOS (if my clotting disorder didn't prevent it) I could be helped a great deal by being on hormonal birth control, which my employer could also deny now in some states. That if I slipped up right now, in some states I would be required to have a vaginal ultrasound and have the doctor talk to me about how that little cluster of cells was an infant when the idea of that with my miscarriages almost pushed me over the edge due to guilt and sorrow. It's already painful for me that I wanted more children, and the medical and financial issues make the chances for even adoption slim unless we are much better off in ten years or so.

That, for me, is equally horrific. Thank you for the reminder that not all pro-life folks are like that. That there are people out there who support sensible ideas and prevention...which would prevent a vast number of the abortions we're all fighting about. There IS so little support...if things worked the way they were supposed to, then there would be no shame for needed medical decisions, adoptions would run without a hitch, with funding for the birth mother, and everyone who wanted a child would be able to welcome them with open arms and have the resources, jobs, child care, etc. that they need. It seems to me that we both want that world.

[Medusa]

Re: Ask a Pro Life Pagan

I was talking with Dumuzi about this thread. Saying how much I enjoyed it. It's quite different then how most of the abortion threads go on other boards. Two things I want to throw in(not related to anyone's opinion here, but just an off-shoot)

1) If a big group of organized people who believe in no abortions because, I dunno, it's against their morals because, I dunno, their deity told them to...well if they believe in no abortions then they should do everything in their power to make sure no unwanted pregnancies happen. This should include ALL the ways this happens, and not just no sex. So it pisses me off to high hell when the very people say NO ABORTIONS also say NO CONTRACEPTION. NOT even in marriage *coughcatholicscough*. I have to wonder about the sheer idiocy of this thought. Hey, you know the people who are in need of getting an abortion due to hardships etc, well let's make it hard for them to prevent it! Hey, you know what? Let's just make things worse and make you have a baby you don't want because you couldn't have contraception to prevent it.

2) I'm a bit more...what's the word, harsh about the reasons for abortion. Everyone wants to throw in RAPE RAPE RAPE. It should be the exception because it's horrible. Who in their right mind says no to that? Well...if I don't want to have a baby because I don't want another mouth to feed, because I think my career is more important, because I think I'd finish college, because I don't like the idea of being a mother, because it's a full moon. ANY reason I give about my body is a valid reason. Not just the one that's akin to saying HITLER IS BAD. If I don't want to keep a fetus in me, I shouldn't have to give a reason that's ok with anyone but me.

3) The religious view of no abortion/no contraception is a way to make women slaves and have no control over their own bodies.

[Shahaku]

Re: Ask a Pro Life Pagan

Corbin: What's your view on stem cell research? It just seems that, kinda like abortion and capitol punishment are tied, so are abortion and stem-cell research.

[Jembru]

Re: Ask a Pro Life Pagan

Okay, I've been hoping someone else would ask and save me from getting involved but...

I consider myself pro-choice, but also think that choice must come with responsibility, so I am pro-common sense too. Abortion should be a last resort although I can't imagine many women would abuse abortion anyway: it's not a pleasant procedure to go through.

Having said that, if you are pro-life, should you not also be in favour of adoption? Should we as a society not be changing our attitude from needing to spread our seed, to simply wanting to nurture and bring up a healthy child, regardless of genetics?

I really hope to adopt when/if the desire for a family ever hits me. Having spent many years in a same-sex relationship, adoption is an idea I'd already got used to and now it's stuck with me. I'd also consider adopting a disabled child, as even in this day and age, people still give up such children on the basis of their disability.

Otherwise, isn't forcing women who are incapable of being a good parent, to carry a child full term just because of some ideal, just forcing a poor child into a neglectful and unsuitable life? Someone close to me had an appauling upbringing (and is still damaged by it), after their mother got pregnant to someone she was having an affair with, in order to win the man for herself. It didn't work, and she ended up with a child she neither wanted nor loved. I know this isn't the same thing, but it is an example of what happens to unwanted children born into a loveless home.

[Siloh]

Re: Ask a Pro Life Pagan

Corbin: What's your view on stem cell research? It just seems that, kinda like abortion and capitol punishment are tied, so are abortion and stem-cell research.

Didn't geneticists everywhere dodge this bullet by discovering that embryonic fluid has all the awesome and none of the fetus of stem cells? I think they did. I hope whoever figured that out has been patting themselves deservedly on their own back ever since. :P

---------- Post added at 08:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:43 PM ----------

Okay, I'm being a bad poster and interjecting where I was never asked.

But for the record, my ideal is that whether it's a full moon or you were raped, you should never be compelled to have to state, even if throwing rape into the pot is one of my initial reactions as a pro-choice voice. Explaining my medical choices to anyone is on my priority list next to "eat a pane of glass."

[Ophidia]

Re: Ask a Pro Life Pagan

Otherwise, isn't forcing women who are incapable of being a good parent, to carry a child full term just because of some ideal, just forcing a poor child into a neglectful and unsuitable life? Someone close to me had an appauling upbringing (and is still damaged by it), after their mother got pregnant to someone she was having an affair with, in order to win the man for herself. It didn't work, and she ended up with a child she neither wanted nor loved. I know this isn't the same thing, but it is an example of what happens to unwanted children born into a loveless home.

I've been staying out of this thread as best I can because for me, it's personal - but on the other side of it. The one question I would have loved to ask my mother is 'why didn't you abort me or give me up for adoption?'. She died when I was 10, and at 10 I wasn't a political activist teen yet. I knew how babies were made, but I don't think knowing how pregnancy could be terminated was on my mental horizon yet.

I was a child born into a marriage between two people who didn't really want the interference of a child. My mother never held back when it came to telling me how much I ruined her life, how much of a mistake I was, how I was a continual wedge in the relationship between her & my dad. I'm always going to be perplexed by that unasked and unanswered question. Did she keep me because she thought she was supposed to? Did she keep me because she had no access to an abortion clinic? It's hard for me to believe that my dad would have been able to prevent her from doing it - he was a truck driver & on the road a lot. She didn't have a lot of support or oppression from her family, and my mother wasn't a social butterfly by any means. A big consequence of her keeping me is that 10 years of barely interacting with me beyond absolute necessity is that I feel like I don't belong here, like I've never belonged here, and just because other people find me useful from time to time doesn't really mean that I should be here. I feel like I'm just taking up space and oxygen that would be better served by someone who was wanted. I tried to remedy that problem myself a few times, but obviously it didn't work because I'm still sitting here taking up space & typing.

I try to tell myself it was 1973 after all, and Roe vs Wade was only fought about 2 - 3 months before my conception. You'd think because of that reason alone, no unwanted child would have been born in late 1973 - early 1974. You'd think that almost every pregnant woman would have rushed out for celebratory abortions when that happened. But they didn't. If the debate ended with abortion being 100% legal everywhere, with no social stigmas attached to it, and support systems in place for post-abortion health care, I don't think women would rush out and term their pregnancies in record numbers. Most women I know who have kids love them and want them and are happy with their choice to have those kids, and those kids will grow up knowing they were loved and wanted. But there will always be people like me, who wonder why we are even around.

I worked for the local government child protective services for about 6 months. I saw babies & kids come in with horrific injuries to body and soul, and some of them will never live healthy, normal, functional lives. Some of them had no visible scars, but will never really fit in with a foster or adoptive home because they were with their birth parents long enough to be psychologically or emotionally ruined. People can say all they want, "oh, but those children are here to teach people how to not do that to kids, how to recognize abuse when they see it, and how to prevent it", but those kinds of abuses have been happening for centuries and we still haven't stopped it. I will never understand why it's better for those kids to live in that kind of condition than to never have been born.

It's all fine & dandy to be pro-life, but there are so many angles to this problem that are not going to be solved by denying women the right to determine their own futures and their own lives.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Ask a Pro Life Pagan

Thank you, Dez - that's just what I wanted to get out.

I think there are a lot of people who, like me, are uneasy with the whole abortion thing. People like me end up having to pick on polar opposite or the other, neither of which really does what we'd like.

I want to get rid of abortion. There's two ways to do it - make it impossible to get one legally (which NEVER works) or reduce/eliminate the need. I will work for the later, even though I know that the need will never go away completely.

This kind of solution should make everybody happy - abortion is legal as long as there is a need for it, and people are actively working at real solutions to reduce the need.

That, for me, is equally horrific. Thank you for the reminder that not all pro-life folks are like that. That there are people out there who support sensible ideas and prevention...which would prevent a vast number of the abortions we're all fighting about. There IS so little support...if things worked the way they were supposed to, then there would be no shame for needed medical decisions, adoptions would run without a hitch, with funding for the birth mother, and everyone who wanted a child would be able to welcome them with open arms and have the resources, jobs, child care, etc. that they need. It seems to me that we both want that world.

QFT

---------- Post added at 10:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:54 AM ----------

Corbin: What's your view on stem cell research? It just seems that, kinda like abortion and capitol punishment are tied, so are abortion and stem-cell research.

Well, if it's a matter of cell samples tken from aborted fetuses...

With over one million abortions taking place in the U.S. annually, I'd like to see some good coming out of it...

It seems like a silly thing for people to argue about.

Now, if the fetuses were being "mined" - used as a natural resurce for the production of XXXXXX, I think I'd have some qualms about it. Apparently, China has no toruble with that:

http://www.paganforum.com/showthread...ight=dead+baby

I suppose it could happen eventually, but I hope I don't live to see it in this country.

---------- Post added at 10:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:12 AM ----------

Having said that, if you are pro-life, should you not also be in favour of adoption? Should we as a society not be changing our attitude from needing to spread our seed, to simply wanting to nurture and bring up a healthy child, regardless of genetics?

Adoption is certainly good. As far as the second part goes - that's what I would regard as a personal decision. I try to avoid getting involved in people's personal decisions.

Otherwise, isn't forcing women who are incapable of being a good parent, to carry a child full term just because of some ideal, just forcing a poor child into a neglectful and unsuitable life?

Maybe. Maybe not. It can work both ways, but it's irrelevent ot me because I'm not forcing anybody to do anything, or even coercing them...

---------- Post added at 10:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:20 AM ----------

It's all fine & dandy to be pro-life, but there are so many angles to this problem that are not going to be solved by denying women the right to determine their own futures and their own lives.

Yes, which I why I don't want to do it.

However, Perzephone, for the record - I'm glad to have had a chance to meet you.

[Raphaeline]

Re: Ask a Pro Life Pagan

I'm not a hamster or a preying mantis. I'm also not a tuna, jellyfish, or wombat, and several other animals. I'm not modeling my life on them either. Seriously? Are you? Have you bitten the head off a mate lately?

When I read this, I immediately thought of the Creationist comment, "MY grandfather wasn't a monkey!"
I am certainly not trying to turn your thread into an argument, but this doesn't seem a satisfying reason to me. The thing that we have in common with tuna, jellyfish or wombats is that we're animals, and it doesn't seem unfair to say that it could be a characteristic of animals. This isn't a really surprising comment from ME, of course, since I tend to do very little differentiation between humans and the rest of the animal world.

This is the kind of debate I tend to run away from, so don't expect me to get too involved, but.. I have a question for Volcaniclastic..

You mentioned that you don't like to use contraception besides condoms. I'm curious to know if there is any ethical reason for this, or if it is simply a matter of preference.

Well, to be honest, there are two main reasons, but before I mention them, I will mention that I hate condoms, too. But necessities and all, right? Anyhow:
1) taking hormones creeps the shit out of me. I realize that the copper IUD is an option in the non-hormonal department, but sticking something inside of me is gross too. And no, I can't explain further - this is just a fact of life for me.
2) Family history of birth control being really awful to the brain chemistry of the female members of my family. I'm not taking crazy pills because I need to not have kids.

(I also dislike birth control with the exception of condoms. My identity as a woman is closely tied to my reproductive system (long story short) and it feels disrespectful to take hormonal birth control or otherwise alter the parts of my body that concern having children. My role as a mother is religious for me, so it feels offensive to take birth control. And, like V, it creeps me out. Big time.)



Women with babies (who love them dearly) that are pro-choice... WE exist, too! With two kids, when I say I'm pro-choice, you'd think I'd just said I'd be alright with pushing them into traffic. But don't think for a moment that I feel your opinion here is offensive to me. I pose these questions this way to include my own opinion as well as to understand your response.

You identify a fetus that is aborted as a victim. However, this is my issue with a strict pro-life stance (and it's just what Medusa said): if a woman is unable to abort a pregnancy, she becomes the victim instead. Her body is no longer under her control and she is forced to be in a state that she does not want, with the promise of a birth she wants no part in. If abortion were not available, what would you consider an option for a pregnant woman - who doesn't want to be?

And it's not really all about being responsible. Using abortion as birth control sounds expensive, painful and a hell of a lot harder to hide and obtain than condoms, so I have a hard time believing the large majority of abortions are by women who became pregnant for lack of other methods to avoid it. The only way to avoid pregnancy in it's entirety is to never have sex at all. Although it's the logical answer to the question, do you think that it could be truly put into practice? To me, seeing it this way is kind of comparable to the risk involved in auto travel. As an example of what I mean, in American Gods, the highway gods are described as having no lack of blood sacrifice, which is exactly true - we as a society have agreed that the lives lost to automobile accidents (quite the high number by the way) is an acceptable exchange for faster travel and everything that it makes possible. Are we willing, as a society, to agree that sex should only occur when a baby would be welcome? Should married couples be chaste unless willing to procreate?

[Siloh]

Re: Ask a Pro Life Pagan

Corbin, I have an inventory of quotes that I've been building to frame my question, but I'm going to just forget about it for the sake of brevity, and I can pull them out if you feel it's necessary for clarity.

You seem to feel quite reasonably about the obstacles of banning abortions outright, and you seem to have an understanding of the consequences involved for women across the country should such a ban be instated nationally. You also acknowledge a variety of ways that the rate of abortion could be lowered, perhaps dramatically were all of them employed effectively (my editorializing, not yours!), without resorting to making abortions flat out illegal. And, very reasonably, and thank goodness, none of your listed suggestions hints at anything resembling a ridiculous 8 inch probe.

With all of these in mind, why do you feel the pro-life label is valuable?

This is one of those concepts that simply escapes me entirely. If someone realizes how many women would be anywhere from very negatively to tragically affected by a ban, that it would be impossible to stop entirely, that there would be an overwhelming number of seriously extenuating circumstances, presumably you have realized that abortion is devastating and not a light procedure, and that there are more holistic, encompassing solutions to treat the disease and not the symptoms of the issue, why on earth would you want to give people fewer options? Why take something off the table when the issue is so very personal and contains so many factors?

Most of the pro-life people I've interacted with talk about getting abortions like it's a damn tea party. With my experience, I can't even talk to these people. Abortion is terrible, and I really don't know who could possibly know that on a more personal, intimate, vivid level than those who have experienced one. So I understand, in a way, why these people are pro-choice. Because if you're looking at it that way, it seems like abortions shouldn't be available maybe, because they're so much freakin' fun in these people's heads. But when you really know the issue, and you see the horror of this decision, and you realize that there are consequences for women who go through with these decisions (even if that understanding only covers hormonal trauma), then why is this an important option to remove?

This is a real question, but what is above is a more pressing and "realer" question, for clarification.
If you had real, tangible, sound evidence that, were we to drop this issue entirely and just all focus all of our energy we previously put into this debate into various social programs aimed at reducing unwanted pregnancies, that this would successfully reduce terminated pregnancies to situations where there was forced insemination or the pregnancy threatened the mother's life, would you set aside your ideal of banning abortions and instead turn your attentions to these programs?

[Dez]

Re: Ask a Pro Life Pagan

I'm not going to speak for Corbin, Rafe, but if I understand right based on the past couple of pages, his ideal is to make it so that all medical care and alternatives are affordable and widely available, meaning that adoptions only are ever needed as a last resort, usually for medical reasons.

An example of this would be Sweden, IMO. All forms of abortion are legal there, but because medical care is so affordable, and quality of life is so good, they are much more rare then in America.