Abortion, your (lack of) choice..

[Scooter]

loca, no one denied his grief, but only the notion that he could decide to do something which was impossible for him to experience. No one would have denied your parents' grief had you, god forbid, been KIA. But the decision that you would enlist could only have been yours.

[MajGenl.Meade]

removed message

[loCAtek]

loca, no one denied his grief, but only the notion that he could decide to do something which was impossible for him to experience. No one would have denied your parents' grief had you, god forbid, been KIA. But the decision that you would enlist could only have been yours.

On that point, my decision to leave active duty was done by my ex-husband and I. Had it been up to me alone, I would have stayed in the service, but this was a life changing event that we both had to agree on. I see the Genr'l and his wife made their choice to conceive together, and well as the tragic decision; that's what a marriage is all about.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Wow, that ignore button sure is a great feature

Quod erat demonstrandumb and blind too

[Scooter]

Did your ex-husband have the right to drag you out of the service by the hair against your wishes? No. Did your ex-husband have the right to rip up your discharge papers and say, "f**k you bitch, you're stayin' in," if you wanted to leave? Again, no. So the decision was yours. Did Meade have the right to go to his wife's doctor and tell him/her, "my wife doesn't want an abortion, but I want her to have one, so get her prepped"? No. Did Meade have the right, if his wife wanted an abortion, to yank her off the operating table and drag her home? No. So the decision was hers, not his.

Both of you are confusing taking account of another person's wishes when making a decision for oneself, with another person having the power to make a decision for you. The former, particularly in a marriage, can be a good thing. The latter was extinguished with the abolition of slavery, or at least so I thought.

[MajGenl.Meade]

"Did Meade have the right to go to his wife's doctor and tell him/her, "my wife doesn't want an abortion, but I want her to have one, so get her prepped"? No. Did Meade have the right, if his wife wanted an abortion, to yank her off the operating table and drag her home? No. So the decision was hers, not his"

Scooter, when were either of those claims made except by you?
No I could not force my wife to have an abortion. No I could not yank her off the operating table etc.

If you want to say that her decision was to defer to my decision and I made that decision - and thereby it really was "her" decision in the first place I have no objection to you putting it that way.

I think you have no knowledge or understanding at all that she would have had the abortion had I said so (which I did and she then did) or she would have carried that baby to term if I had said so. That was her decision - to do what I determined because any CHANGE in circumstances must have 100% agreement. A split decision (she yes and me no) would have resulted in no abortion. It's not slavery when both people mutually submit to each other. I am sorry for your lack of understanding but I will no longer discuss this with your hateful (edit: sorry wrong word) hate-filled personality

Meade

[Sue U]

The abortion seemed obviously the "right" thing to do. Our (UCC) pastor even told us it was the right thing to do. Our friends all said it was the right thing to do.

Simply put, it wasn't.

Why?

Because I killed my child

Meade

MGM: I do not mean to minimize your grief, and surely this was a tragic outcome. But as I see it, neither you nor your spouse killed your child, a genetic disorder did. Whether your child would have died in utero, been stillborn, or died within minutes or days or even months of birth, the tragedy is no greater because you opted for abortion; all the options and potential results were unwelcome. In fact, to the extent that our purpose in this world is to minimize suffering, your decision cannot be challenged. I am truly sorry for your loss, but I don't see how you can condemn yourself for choosing what you judged to be the least bad of bad choices.

[Crackpot]

that is a matter of Opinion Sue It is a choice few would fault him for but the question "what amount/quality of life is worth it will be debated by philosophers till doomsday since no one has any verifiable experience otherwise.

[SisterMaryFellatio]

Did your ex-husband have the right to drag you out of the service by the hair against your wishes? No. Did your ex-husband have the right to rip up your discharge papers and say, "f**k you bitch, you're stayin' in," if you wanted to leave? Again, no. So the decision was yours. Did Meade have the right to go to his wife's doctor and tell him/her, "my wife doesn't want an abortion, but I want her to have one, so get her prepped"? No. Did Meade have the right, if his wife wanted an abortion, to yank her off the operating table and drag her home? No. So the decision was hers, not his.

Both of you are confusing taking account of another person's wishes when making a decision for oneself, with another person having the power to make a decision for you. The former, particularly in a marriage, can be a good thing. The latter was extinguished with the abolition of slavery, or at least so I thought.

Fuck me Scooter! We actually agree!!

You hit the nail on the head.

[Sean]

A couple of points MGM:

You say that

A split decision (she yes and me no) would have resulted in no abortion.

The fact is (of course I don't know your wife so I'm speaking in general terms here) if such a split decision was to occur and she was determined that she wanted the termination there is absolutely nothing that you could do to stop her. If the decision was reversed you could not force her into the termination. This is why the final decision will always rest with the woman. Can't you see that?

As much as I respect your grief your wrong (in your eyes) decision does NOT give you the right to condemn or moralise to others. To be honest you're beginning to come across as a holier-than-thou God botherer here...

I note that the good Sister remains silent also - perhaps she did and perhaps she didn't go through the same experience. Perhaps her sock puppet speaks for her.

Do you know that some people have lives away from the internet? I think that you do and that line was designed to be a nasty little piece of bait... That's not a very Christian thing to do now is it?



And now I sit back and wait for the passive-aggressive response.

[Scooter]

A man "deciding" to have an abortion makes as much sense as a woman "deciding" to get a penile circumcision.

[Sue U]

that is a matter of Opinion Sue It is a choice few would fault him for but the question "what amount/quality of life is worth it will be debated by philosophers till doomsday since no one has any verifiable experience otherwise.

Which is precisely my point; there is simply no realistic way to say one choice was better or more moral or "right." All we can do is use our best judgment under the circumstances.

[Crackpot]

Still one is subjected to the "what ifs".

[Sue U]

That is necessarily the result of making a choice in any situation, from the most minor to the most grave.

[Gob]

I think the main point is being lost here; "What makes the law unique is that the mandated counselling will come from people whose central qualification is that they are opposed to abortion."

[Sue U]

Well duh! The only purpose of purported "counseling" requirements in abortion restriction legislation is to have third parties interfere with the doctor-patient relationship solely in order to dissuade a woman from choosing abortion. At least in this case they've finally stopped pretending it's "informational."

[MajGenl.Meade]

Many interesting thoughts.

Sean: I do not intend to judge others - though indeed in my unchristian anger at some of the things said I may appear to do so. It's my fault in that case, not anyone else's. I don't think of myself as "holier than thou" because that's exactly what I was not (and still am not). IIRC I began without bringing religion into this and in fact stated that I doubted the gov't right to interfere as described in the OP.

Everything since then has been a pointless (I now see) argument with two personas who are bound and determined that I am not permitted to describe my wife and my situation as one in which I made the decision that an abortion was the "right" thing to do. Even Loca was not permitted to claim truth in this statement: "On that point, my decision to leave active duty was done by my ex-husband and I. Had it been up to me alone, I would have stayed in the service, but this was a life changing event that we both had to agree on". No, one of the two potty-mouths was just forced to tell her she was wrong and she alone made the decision.

I question who is judging who?

Sue (and others): Yes well we have differing opinions on when "life" begins. If the child had been born and I decided to smother it with a pillow there would probably be much sympathy but many more people (than over the current issue) would be uncomfortable in dismissing it as "the right thing to do". I knew as soon as I saw the boy that I was wrong - not just about that but about most of my life. I in effect decided to terminate God's gift of life my way and in my time. I made all the same arguments then that people would make now. I was not a Christian and I did not bring "the Bible says" to bear on my blazing and immediate certainty that I was, after all, in the wrong. Clearly I have to disagree with you that there is no realistic way to determine what is or is not a right action. One does one's best indeed but one's best is not the standard by which anything much should be measured. I don't condemn myself for the original decision; I don't condemn others for similar decisions.

As to the two issues, I think the gov't should never mandate what insurance companies insure and do not insure. If they want to insure abortions then that is the decision that the insurance company alone should make.

On the counselling I am divided. In favour of it is the fact that women uncertain of abortion decisions are otherwise more likely to be pressured into going ahead with the procedure right away. Perhaps alternatives do deserve more emphasis. Against it, I don't think it is gov'ts duty or right to prescribe where people should go for counselling at all, unless they are involved in an illegal act. Abortion is not an illegal act in itself. So while I support the idea that more informaton is better than less, in the end the legislature is wrong in this case.

Meade

[Sean]

Sean: I do not intend to judge others - though indeed in my unchristian anger at some of the things said I may appear to do so. It's my fault in that case, not anyone else's. I don't think of myself as "holier than thou" because that's exactly what I was not (and still am not). IIRC I began without bringing religion into this and in fact stated that I doubted the gov't right to interfere as described in the OP.

Let me refresh your memory a little:

... and I'm always thunderstruck by the number of mothers who electively destroy their child. You would think after all the sex education and availability of contraceptives that there would be a legion of women taking responsiblity for the choice they have already made with their bodies(*)


(*) recognizing that there are a small (relatively) number of women to whom this statement does not apply.

You don't think that you're being judgmental there? All that's missing is the sound of the last trump! And that was before anybody fuelled your "unchristian anger".

The scariest moralisers are those who can't see that they are moralising...

Everything since then has been a pointless (I now see) argument with two personas who are bound and determined that I am not permitted to describe my wife and my situation as one in which I made the decision that an abortion was the "right" thing to do.

It is now clear to me that you just can't (or indeed refuse to) see the point being made by Scooter, SMF and myself. I'm not going to waste any more time in trying to explain it to you... Feel free to carry on twisting their words.

[loCAtek]

I'm sorry you had to face this Genr'l sir, as while we may disagree, I try my utmost to do so respectfully, and understand your position.

Coming from a ' honorable marriage' stand-point seems legitimate to me, and should be heard, as well as the 'single female' stand-point.

Neither should be ridiculed or disparaged, both are valid.

[Crackpot]

All are refusing to see each others points.


(though the circumcision argument was silly as they have obviously not spent much time in a maternity ward)