Your Body, Your Choice

 Michael- 

    You stated that "People don't seem to understand that by protesting a woman's abortion, they are protesting a woman's dignity and natural rights." Remember in physics when Mrs. Atherton said that we are working under conditions in "magic physics land", like ignoring friction in some problems? Well, here the "friction" we are ignoring is that no one, even in America have absolute rights and freedom. Otherwise, it would be legal to drive over the speed limit, steal merchandise and kill other people at our will. When discussing abortion and the idea that it limits a woman's rights, one must also be open to debating the parallels between abortion and murder. Murder is ending a life before it was meant to be ended. Abortion seems to be doing the same thing. 

    I know of people who have had children early in life and have still become successful, even though it is through hard work. Basil said that, "As far as I'm concerned that is inhibiting the babys right to live with any opportunity in life and it is negligence by the government by forcing a mother to have the baby." The opportunities Basil states may not be as easily available to a baby born into poverty, but what opportunities does one have if not given the chance to live? I understand when Basil says that men should have no say in the decision of abortion, however I think that it is important for a man who values life to also voice his opinion in a vote for or against abortion. 

Michael-

Great work on this topic and kudos to you for bringing to light such a controversial topic. In regards to Basil's statement, "I would bet that the majority of people who are pro-life are financially stable, are not minorities, and have some religious affiliations. That is another problem with outlawing abortion - the foundation for many peoples' opinions on abortion are in religious doctrine - we are supposed to have a totally separate church and state and cannot base any legal decisions on anything remotely from religious teachings." I would have to disagree with him. I think it is a harsh generaalization on his part to suggest that. I do not agree with abortion, but it's not because I am a religious zealot of any sort. I think it is a question of morals, but I would never tell another woman to not have an abortion. The idea of completely seperating church and state seems so impractical. If we really wanted to seperate the two, what kind of society would we really live in?

The abortion question isn't simply a question of religion, its a simple question of humanity and morality. I do agree with you that government has no right to tell someone how to live morally, but maybe we shouldn't rely so much on the government on how to live our lives. Individuals need to start stepping up and assuming responisibility for thier own actions.

Great work Michael-

Cricket

As I read this topic it reminds me of a lot of things. It reminds me of all my friends who have been impregnated by their boyfriends and decided to choose abortion instead of doing the right thing and taking responsibility for their actions. I am against abortion because it is against my religion and my own personal beliefs. I think that if you are not responsible enough to use protection, then you should take on the roll of raising the child that you weren't expecting because of your negligence. I think it is wrong to cut off a life that could have changed this world in a postive way. They could have been the next doctor to find a cure for cancer or HIV/AIDS. They could have been the next judge to say no I don't think this or that is the right, giving fair trials, serving justice properly. That child could have been the next president to make the proper decisions for our country to make sure we have the right supplies to get us through any downfalls. But by one woman or teenaged girl who was incapable of doing the right thing, decides to kill that life is ridiculous. I believe that if you weren't smart enough to use protection then you shouldn't be doing IT at all.

By Jaime stating, "I know that I cannot have this baby. It may sound as if I should, but the truth is that I am not ready to be a mother." that just shows that she is not even an adult, but a child that has no responsibilities whatsoever. I disagree when you said, "People don't seem to understand that by protesting a woman's abortion, they are protesting a woman's dignity and natural rights." Every woman has their own dignity and rights, which is correct. But I think that by people protesting this decision, they are trying to open her eyes so she is not blinded by her irresponsibility. The protestors obviously feel the same way about abortion. By protesting, it is not taking away nothing from a womans dignity or rights, it is only to make her realize she is doing something that is wrong. It is wrong to take away a life that never even had the chance to make it into the world. I think that is a blessing to be in this world, taking part in daily activities because our mothers CHOSE to keep us, whether they wanted to or not. They took their responsibilty head on, and I believe that all other women should too!

WRONG!!! ya that is true your body your choice but you have to think about whats going to happen after you actually do it you noe? 

Michael,

I admire your courage in taking on this topic for one of your posts. I think abortion rights is one of the topics that must be discussed thoroughly by kids our age, because availability of abortion procedures most effects girls of our age. Because I like to think my opinion is important, I will state it. I think that abortions should be available as an option to any woman who might consider the option. I agree strongly with Basil and Michael that college pregnancy ruins the lives it saves in most cases, and adoption, although great, is not the end-all solution. Cricket brings up the point that not all pro-life viewpoints are religious; although I do not dispute this, I do question the consistency of the republican party on this position. Republicans claim to promote deregulation, and less government (respectable ideas) but the banning of abortion procedures is obviously incongruous with this claim. I do not agree with many of the things people say, do, buy, sell, and drive on a regular basis, but I respect their choices, and most of the time agree that that choice may be right for them but not me. I think this is really the issue behind abortion rights. It is the sole decision of the person who the operation is to be performed on. Although others should by all means seek to educate this person on the consequences of either choice, in the end, it is (or at least it should be) their decision.

-Griffin

Michael,

   I admire your courage for tackling such a controversial topic and I admire everyone else who has taken a risk speaking their minds about the different sides to this important issue. I especially appreciated Cricket's cool-headed approach to the issue, as she stated that she was against abortion but did not see that it was right to tell someone else who did not agree with her what to do. As demonstrated by the variety of stances on this topic, it can be inferred that there is no way there can be a completely mutual agreement on this. We aren't going to turn pro-life advocates into pro-choice believers, and vice versa. We just aren't. But what we can do is respect the right of each one of us to hold an opinion. We can respect the right for others to make themselves look immoral in our own eyes, but maybe not in theirs. While I am extremely pro-choice (probably because of my religiously neutral, liberal, and medical upbringing) most of my own beliefs on this topic have already been stated so I feel no inclination to beat the dead horse over pre-existing arguments.

    However, I see an additional approach to this controversy. What if the government were to make an opposite law, or a law stating that if you cannot properly care for a child, because of various reasons and because you were obviously being irresponsible in the first place, you are required to have an abortion? This acutally makes feasible sense for a government, seeing as there would be one less person who is likely to end up in welfare or under government care in some way or another. The pro-lifers would go nuts over this, with the same sort of personal investment that the pro-choicers do on whether or not the government can control what happens to their body. The argument would (again) then be: Who are you to tell me that I have to do this to my body (ie. hypothetical situation with mandatory abortion)? Hmmm...that sounds exactly like the same argument the pro-choicers make on whether or not the gov can tell them they can't have an abortion.  I just don't understand why so many people are trying to make it their business to control what mothers do and do not do with their bodies. Especially when there are plently of bad mothers out there to attack, rather than the ones (like Jamie) who genuinely have the baby's interest at heart. If you are against it, great, fabulous. I am glad you know your values and beliefs, and then if ever the time came when you were faced with an unpredicted baby you will know what to do. But why make it your agenda to tell other people they can't. Yes, there is the whole issue on whether or not the baby is an acutal human or not, but as far as I can rationalize this, that baby is not the same kind of human we all are. It is either a mash of cells or completely dependent on the mother. We don't get mad at mothers who are drug and alcohol addicts, who cause serious damage to their children. I'm sure those children who have to go through life struggling with drug addiction or birth defects probably would rather have never been born, as completely awful as that sounds.

       Would it make the pro-lifers happy to have abortion banned, but then know that those who can't have the abortion are resorting to other methods  because they have to get around some dumb law made by stubborn, controling people? My grandmother used to tell me stories about nurses she was in school with who had to kill their baby with a wire coat-hanger because they absolutely could NOT take care of it and did not want it at all. I have heard of mothers who try desperately to kill their baby by shooting up drugs, excessively drinking, or resorting to other methods that are life-threatening to the baby. Is this what we want?  Is this the solution we really want to resort to? The "we-won't-let-you-do-it-the-easy-way-because-some-people-think-its- "immoral"- so-if-you-want-it-that-bad-you-will-have-to-subject-yourself-to-insurmountable-pain-and-suffering- just-so-we-can-reaffirm-that-you-aren't-breaking-the-law-that-agrees-with-our-way" plan. There are so many loopholes in this issue, so many exceptions and complexities that a perfect consensus will never be made. In my opinion, this shouldn't even be a government issue because unlike muder, there is not unanimous agreement that malice is involved. Only half of the people on this issue believe it is an evil deed, so why make a law that does not agree with the opinion of every contemporary American? Lets just keep the government out of this and let people do what they want with their bodies. If you don't like it, that's okay but you can keep it to yourself or for interesting converstation and not try to infringe your own beliefs on other people. The vicious cycle of this issue will only get worse until we finally can agree to disagree and stop fighitng this as a politcal battle.

Good insight and input everybody. I look forward to future posts from you, Michael.

Meghan

Michael,

    Regardless of your stance on this issue, I'm glad you brought it up. It sparked an engaging real world (outside of cyberspace) debate/conversation. As part of this conversation I was asked whether I was pro-life or pro-choice. I said neither. One of the biggest problems with the current discussion of abortion is its simplistic dichotomy between the extremes. The most tenable solution needs to incorporate elements from both. In my assessment, the pro-choice argument is inherently weaker, because it relies on putting a right to privacy (language from the Roe decision) above a right to life in many cases. As Megan Trentman noted, if this was applied more broadly it would have dangerous and bizarre effects on the legal system. However, even though the pro-life position has the huge advantage of not killing babies (which is generally frowned upon), its advocates have made it quite unappealing. As noted by Griffin, the position has glaring inconsistencies with the political philosophies of many of its proponents. As a whole, many "pro-lifers" are anything but pro-life. They often support the death penalty, eagerly slash social programs, refuse to spend sufficient resources combating famine and disease internationally, and support unnecessary wars. All of this kills a lot of people, directly or indirectly. And if that wasn't enough, there is always the crazy "pro-lifers" who think bombing clinics and shooting doctors is the way to save lives. Additionally, the pro-life position leaves huge questions about how it would work in the real world. It simply doesn't account for the sheer number of children that would be born in less favorable circumstances if abortion were prohibited.

    It seems reasonable to assert that abortions are not "good". They may be necessary in situations, or have a net positive effect (as could be argued with Jamie), but are not independently desirable. Therefore, with an eye set to both reducing the number of situations where abortions would be sought and limiting the number of actual abortions performed, an interesting legislative package emerges. It would have to address the concerns raised by the pro-choice position in a pro-life manner. In the process, it would involve substantial changes to a large portion of government activities. It might look something like this:

• Significantly tighter limits on abortions, making them more difficult to receive
• Comprehensive reform and expansion of government social programs, including providing a true safety net
• Better sex education provided to all and the termination of abstinence-only education
• Easily available conventional contraceptives
• Free and effective prenatal care (as part of wider health care reform)
• Promotion of adoption and child service non-profits
• Revamped program of child welfare aimed at lower classes
• Consistent, complete, and morally sound method for dealing with unwanted children
• More taxes to pay for it all

In short, abortion should be limited, but to do so would require a huge societal transformation far beyond a simple law limiting abortion. The real question is not whether Jamie should get an abortion (or be allowed to do so), but how Jamie's situation could be changed so that there is no need for an abortion. The answer cannot be found in the extremes of the abortion debate, but in a sophisticated compromise position between them.

-C. Domeier

Michael-

I enjoyed reading your post about abortions. It's a very sensitive topic to most people and it's good that you stated where you stand in your opinion about it. I believe that when it comes to abortions the choice lies solely with the girl and no one else. It's her body. I find it frustrating when people taunt and harass women as they walk into clinics to get an abortion. It's hypocritical in a way because I can garuntee that those people have never been in that situatuon and therefore have no idea what it is like. I'd like to see what they would chose to do if ever approached with that situation. Everything changes when your the one having to deal with the issue first hand. But it's also a hard lesson to learn. It makes you realize how carefull you always need to be.

Great post!

Katie

Dear Michael,

I am glad to see that someone has the guts to talk about this tough issue. I agree with you that wome have the right to chose what to do with their body and I am pro-choice, however, I can see where the pro-life point of view is coming from. Is it right for a mother to take away her shild's life, despite the changes in her own life? Is it right for the mother to be able to just erase her mistake at the expense of her unborn child? The decision is a very tough one that digs deep into who we are as people. It asks us to confront our very basic person, and that is why there is no right answer. It all depends on what the person believes in. This debate will rage on forever because there is no correct answere. So I say, lets leave it up to the person that has to make the decision. Everyone has a right to their opinion and to judge what is right and wrong for themselves. it is a  deeply personal and moral decision the mom should be able to make without pressure from anyone else. So please, allow people to make their own decisions in regards to this debate, because there is no right or wrong answer.

Thanks,

Robert

Dear,Michael

Michael,

Your post is an issue that seems like it will never be resolved. Either people strongly support abortion, or they strongly oppose it. Personally, I think both sides have important points. On one hand, taking a baby's life is murder. It was the mothers mistake, and here is the consequence, so on so forth. But on the other hand, bringing a baby into a world where the mother doesn't have her own house, income, or husband could be extremely cruel. You quoted that she said "I know that I cannot have this baby. It may sound as if I should, but the truth is that I am not ready to be a mother." I think it is important she recognized this, because a lot of mothers-to-be don't realize this, and then the baby is born into an unstable family and sees nothing but neglect. But then again it seems so wrong to deprive an innocent baby of its life. I don't know how to feel about this issue, and I certainly don't know what I would do in her situation.

This was a good post. Nice job.

Alyssa

Michael,

First of all, great post. It communicates a cool, observant outlook on a very controversial topic, something that is not easily done. I feel no animosity or overt attempt at persuasion in your writing. I will try to do the same here, in my response, but please bear with me if you find it to the contrary. It is merely an opinion on a very hot topic.

Second, I myself am divided on this issue. I would say I am against abortion. I think it is wrong. However, I am not sure if it is my place, especially since I am male and have no illusion as to understanding the difficulties of pregnancy and caring for children, to tell women what they can or cannot do. I merely am objected to the concept of abortion in general.

Third, being against the act itself, I would have to agree with some of my fellow respondants in that abortion and murder are nearly equivalent. Killing a baby before its birth is just as wrong as killing an adult without just cause (these themselves are difficult to determine, a debate for another time). Despite our patriotic love for freedom, we do not allow it to go unchecked, such as murder or rape or theft. I "support the removal of rights from another person" when it is a "right to kill at will" that is being removed. I don't think that is hypocritical in the least. Even our forefathers recognized that total freedom was both impossible and dangerous to attempt. Our brave fight to keep the freedoms we have, but not to allow the anarchy of totally free choice. In response to your 'keep your opinion off my body' stance, I have to say that I have no problem with your freedoms of personal choice, but allowing you to kill another is wrong of me, a personal choice you should not have. So my opinion will be on you, if only because you threaten the sanctity of a human life, just like it is on all murderers and people who harm others.

As harsh and cruel as this sounds, I believe that Jamie would have learned a better lesson if she actually had the baby. That'll teach you responsibility more than just ducking out and returning to normalcy ever will. "Not being ready to be a mother", should have been something she considered before she started being sexually active. Having the attitude that an abortion is just an escape route to an unfortunate consequence of that sexual activity is a dangerous stance.

Of course, this all just depends whether or not you believe the creature in the womb, baby or whatever you wish to call it, actually has human life in it. As you have certainly guessed, I believe it is a human soul, while they may not be able to actually "feel pain", it is indeed human.

"Pro-life" is merely an easily remembered title for a viewpoint on this issue, and while it can truthfully be observed that most "pro-lifers" are political conservatives, supporting wars, "slashing" social support program, and the death penalty are totally different arguments. Support for war does not mean we (meaning my fellow conservatives and I) are not in fact pro-life. Quite the contrary. Often times, we are very religious and have a great deal of respect for all human life. Granted , there is the exception those which endanger others without just cause, such as death row criminals. Killing a baby in the womb and killing a man who has raped and murdered repeatedly are very, very different. When some may argue that this is "directly or indirectly" leading to the death of others, it is difficult to defend because it is largely true. Cutting social programs does not help other people less fortunate than we, but there is another ideological choice to be considered when bringing up the role of the Federal government in citizens lives. This argument can be just as moral as the argument against abortion or the death penalty.

Thank you, again, for a very interesting argument.

Sincerely,

Ben Brzowski

 Michael, 

That was a depressing story because of the 20 year old getting an abortion. However, I feel that if your ready to have sex then you are ready to have a child. If you wear a condom or take birth controle pills then getting pregnant shouldnt happen.

Michael,

First of all, as everyone has said, nice job taking on this controversial topic and getting it out in the open where it can be discussed. Second of all, I think abortion has been discussed enough as it is on this comment board, as I have literally been sitting here reading great and informative along with supported posts on people's educated opinions for 30 minutes and I'm not even halfway through.

With that said, I think it is important to aknowledge what everyone has done with this post. A group of students have taken a controversial topic in which debate can become very heated and partisan, and they have discussed it rather cooly and calmly. The key word here is discussed. I was very impressed to see that this wasn't an argument, but that there was an actual exchange between both sides of the issue. This was exemplified by Basil's second comment in which he added new considerations from previous comments into his opinion.

It is this type of issue that also shows how important compromise and consensus are today. As has been stated repeatedly above, one side will never be completely converted to the other. Both sides of the issue must be considered, as each has it's merits and weaknesses. And as Craig has shown, compromises where both sides win are possible, even if difficult to implement.

In today's society, this type of mutual discussion needs to be done more often. Not to say that it is only on one side, but the Republicans said they wanted a better health care system but did not offer an alternative to Obama's propositions. That is because both political parties today are only interested in winning in a one-sided game, and this is a sad development to see. Maybe our generation can change that. This discussion certainly gives some hope. Keep up the good work Michael, and everyone else as well!

Max

Michael,

I was deeply touched by your intense and heart wrenching story. It was an incredibly powerful post that sook me to my roots. Although I can't relate to a girl going through the trials of abortion, i can imagine how incredibly hard it would be. Your post put into perspective many of the pros and cons young women considering abortion face. I agree with your stance that it is the females choice in the end because it is their body. The female should have the right to chose abortion, adoption, or parenthood. No one can make this decision for them because each case is different.

Robert