News Should abortion be considered murder?

[Reshma]

Here is where I think most pro-choice logic breaks down. Why should the mother get to decide when it's OK to kill a fetus ?

I think it's hypocritical and self-serving of a woman to declare that one is wrong and the other is OK. I am of the opinion that abortion done for convenience is wrong, male or female, mother's choice or not.

You got me wrong here, sir. I'm not saying that abortions should be carried out without keeping in mind the woman's health and the possible risks involved. I'm just trying to put forth the intention with which female foeticide is carried out.

I am presuming you are not in disfavor of a woman (who got pregnant through irresponsible sexual behaviour) deciding to get a termination because it's not convenient to continue with the pregancy.

I'm completely against irresponsible sexual behaviour. But there is another issue here--who is to decide the moral boundaries here and take responsibility for it?

[And, Reshma, in an Indian context, I know that a lot of young unmarried women (and their complicit families) procure discreet abortions to cover up sexual indiscretions that would make future arranged marriages difficult, if not impossible. If that's not a foeticide of convenience, I don't know what is].

Yes, hypocrisy is salient feature of Indian societies. They set the penultimate rules and end up breaking it themselves for their so-called convenience and prestige in the society. But who is to blame here: the people participating (including educated ones) in such acts?

I see little difference between that and terminating a female child because of the perceived inconvenience in going through with that birth. Remember, that in the traditional Indian system, you have the problems of dowries, and future parental maintenance if you have exclusively female offspring.

Bingo! The perception of a female offspring as a LIABILITY is the issue here. Who creates and participates in customs like dowry--we ourselves? Does this mean the only solution to this is NOT to have daughters? Do sons guarantee life-long security and comforts for their parents?

I think the issue of pro-choice and pro-life have already been discussed here well and good. The issue here is aborting foetuses purely on gender basis(females in this case) keeping in mind pre-marital pregnancy, affordability are not an issue here. There is a virtual gender genocide taking place in some parts of the country often aided and abbetted by the female-folk. In certain parts of India, there are villages where there hasn't been a single marriage of a daughter as most of the female offsprings are killed at birth or die pramaturely.

Don't you think it is insane?

 

[Curious3141]

You got me wrong here, sir. I'm not saying that abortions should be carried out without keeping in mind the woman's health and the possible risks involved. I'm just trying to put forth the intention with which female foeticide is carried out.


I'm completely against irresponsible sexual behaviour. But there is another issue here--who is to decide the moral boundaries here and take responsibility for it?



Yes, hypocrisy is salient feature of Indian societies. They set the penultimate rules and end up breaking it themselves for their so-called convenience and prestige in the society. But who is to blame here: the people participating (including educated ones) in such acts?



Bingo! The perception of a female offspring as a LIABILITY is the issue here. Who creates and participates in customs like dowry--we ourselves? Does this mean the only solution to this is NOT to have daughters? Do sons guarantee life-long security and comforts for their parents?

I think the issue of pro-choice and pro-life have already been discussed here well and good. The issue here is aborting foetuses purely on gender basis(females in this case) keeping in mind pre-marital pregnancy, affordability are not an issue here. There is a virtual gender genocide taking place in some parts of the country often aided and abbetted by the female-folk. In certain parts of India, there are villages where there hasn't been a single marriage of a daughter as most of the female offsprings are killed at birth or die pramaturely.

Don't you think it is insane?

Yes, I think selective femal foeticide is insane.

I also think allowing any abortion of convenience is insane. Just because the woman thinks it's her choice doesn't make it so.

As far as the responsibility for premarital sexual indiscretion goes, I think both father and mother should bear equal financial and caregiver responsibilities. Even if if means giving up big dreams like a college education. You broke it, you bought it.

I think you know where I'm coming from. And I agree Indian society (and society in general) is fraught with hypocritical inconsistency.

 

[Kerrie]

As a doctor, I have actually seen and handled abortuses during my OBGYN rotation (although I have never induced a termination because of conscientious objection). Believe me, abortuses are little babies, fully formed, and very recognisably human, no matter how much the pro-choice advocates seek to dehumanise them.

Thank you for your refreshing point of view You bring up some excellent points, ones worth pondering over from a pro-choice point of view. Personally, I could never make the choice for myself (being female and 4 months pregnant currently). However, your morals are not ones that others do not share, and have not seen what you do in your profession, thus it makes the choice "easier" because of what they see for themselves. If abortion was outlawed (in America anyway), would our women be safer seeking illegal abortions because they were determined to get one whether it was legal or not? It has happened for hundreds of years, and will continue to do so. Of course, having abortion completely illegal will save many potential children too. Can we guarantee that these unplanned or unwanted children will have a quality life too? Most of them I am sure they will, because once you (a parent) sees your newborn for the first time, love is instantly there (I say most, not all).

I have often wondered if abortion is legal more because of the safety of women over the moral issue at hand. Sort of like why gambling and drinking are legal (within certain boundaries of course). People are going to do it anyway. It's interesting how morals and the law get tangled up like they do.

 

[Curious3141]

Thank you for your refreshing point of view You bring up some excellent points, ones worth pondering over from a pro-choice point of view. Personally, I could never make the choice for myself (being female and 4 months pregnant currently). However, your morals are not ones that others do not share, and have not seen what you do in your profession, thus it makes the choice "easier" because of what they see for themselves. If abortion was outlawed (in America anyway), would our women be safer seeking illegal abortions because they were determined to get one whether it was legal or not? It has happened for hundreds of years, and will continue to do so. Of course, having abortion completely illegal will save many potential children too. Can we guarantee that these unplanned or unwanted children will have a quality life too? Most of them I am sure they will, because once you (a parent) sees your newborn for the first time, love is instantly there (I say most, not all).

I have often wondered if abortion is legal more because of the safety of women over the moral issue at hand. Sort of like why gambling and drinking are legal (within certain boundaries of course). People are going to do it anyway. It's interesting how morals and the law get tangled up like they do.

I agree that pragmatic considerations have been allowed to dictate the law, and perhaps this is the wiser choice. But I think the whole process is too easy and too painless for the woman (and the man who impregnated her). A child is not something that should be so flippantly disposed of with a dilatation and suction/curettage in twenty minutes. There should be a sincere effort made to explore other avenues, including some financial and social help in carrying an "unwanted" child to term, then putting it up for adoption in a foster home. There is no shortage of childless couples who are willing to move heaven and Earth to call somebody their son or daughter. Why deprive them of that mercy with a murder ?

Kerrie, if you want to bring up the point of "unwanted" kids, please keep in mind there are plenty of kids that were "wanted" previously, then become "unwanted" baggage tossed around inconsiderately during separations, divorces, or simply bad financial straits. There is no reason to suppose that an "unwanted" conceptus carried to term by a mother is going to be any worse off; in fact, the opposite may be true because adoptive parents prefer taking in neonates and infants into their homes. I dare say these "unwanted" babies are going to be faring a lot better in loving homes than the so called "wanted" children who are later treated as chattel by their moronic parents.

 

[misskitty]

This is a new twist on the original thread. I was wondering if someone was going to bring up the abortion rates in the countries, like China and India, where sons are more valuable than the lives of daughters. It seems as though such patterns of opinions have put values on human life; a man's life is more important than a woman's life. Wrong, they are equally valuable and there is no price for life. The fact people can substantiate such opinions is beyond my comprehension.

Reshma, I don't think anyone is going to deem you as a feminist. The question you have brought to light is one people don't like to address most of the time. I wonder why that is.

There are billboards in China depicting a mother holding an infant and the father with his hands on the mother's shoulders, both parents smiling at the tiny child. The translation of the text underneath them is roughly: Its ok to have a daughter.

 

[Kerrie]

A child is not something that should be so flippantly disposed of with a dilatation and suction/curettage in twenty minutes. There should be a sincere effort made to explore other avenues, including some financial and social help in carrying an "unwanted" child to term, then putting it up for adoption in a foster home.

I absolutely agree. Not so long ago, I supported abortion for the "woman's right to choose", but I would say my support today is mostly from the perspective of the safety for women. The reasons women decide to abort can be careless ones or selfish ones much more often then medical ones. I have read many instances that the decision to abort caused a tremendous amount of grief and guilt later on too in these women.

Adoption isn't always an avenue either for these women because of judgement being passed on them from family for example. I also think women abort not just because they don't want to support a child, but also because they don't want to go through pregnancy itself either. Speaking from experience, it's not comfortable, labor can be difficult and painful (women fear this quite a bit in the whole childbearing process), and you have a flurry of questions from people about what to name the baby, who's the father, etc. The man involved clearly doesn't have to endure this, especially if the couple isn't committed to one another already. It is easy for her to feel that she received the unfair advantage, especially if the couple took precaution and still ended up pregnant (ie: condom broke).

I think the best way for the pro-lifers to ever "win" this neverending battle is to put their efforts into the support you mention, such as financial and social help. Judgement passing and pictures of dead fetuses only enrage emotions for both sides. If a woman is thinking of aborting because she wants to finish college, can there be incentives for her to carry on through the pregnancy yet still maintain her ability to finish her schooling? Can we educate those men potentially involved and the woman's family (especially if she is young) to support her decision to carry the child? From a link I posted earlier in this thread, the actual numbers of abortion has declined in recent years. Something is working to change the negative stigma of "unwed young pregnant woman".

please keep in mind there are plenty of kids that were "wanted" previously, then become "unwanted" baggage tossed around inconsiderately during separations, divorces, or simply bad financial straits.

This is a tragedy I admit. But I am strictly addressing unplanned pregnancies here. How many of these unplanned pregancies result in less then adequate parental love by both parents? Many of these women fear raising a child alone. Bottom line, women need support by the pro-lifers if we are going to raise the moral standards of American (and other) societies, not judgement that they are awful people for thinking such a thing. Chances are, they are very scared and don't know what to do about their own situation when faced with an unplanned pregnancy.

 

[learningphysics]

Avenue not mentioned - sterilization

Risk of pregnancy can be minimized by tubal ligation for women, or vasectomies for men. If one does not want to deal with accidental pregnancies, or the struggle of dealing with a pregnancy, then this seems the correct option.

 

[Kerrie]

Risk of pregnancy can be minimized by tubal ligation for women, or vasectomies for men. If one does not want to deal with accidental pregnancies, or the struggle of dealing with a pregnancy, then this seems the correct option.

for some men and women, it isn't about never wanting children, but the right time in their life. reversal of this is expensive and difficult. tubal ligation is an expensive surgery that is not always covered by insurance, the same goes for vasectomies. an abortion has a much lower cost then these procedures.

is anyone aware of how expensive contraceptives are? a pack of oral contraceptives cost at least $30 a pack ($1 a day through a private insurance carrier). some are higher since some women cannot take certain types. not all health insurance companies are willing to help cover the costs of these pills too.

if contraception was free to all who needed it, the need for abortion might rapidly decline.

 

[learningphysics]

for some men and women, it isn't about never wanting children, but the right time in their life. reversal of this is expensive and difficult. tubal ligation is an expensive surgery that is not always covered by insurance, the same goes for vasectomies. an abortion has a much lower cost then these procedures.

is anyone aware of how expensive contraceptives are? a pack of oral contraceptives cost at least $30 a pack ($1 a day through a private insurance carrier). some are higher since some women cannot take certain types. not all health insurance companies are willing to help cover the costs of these pills too.

if contraception was free to all who needed it, the need for abortion might rapidly decline.

I agree with your point about the costs of vasectomies and tubal ligation.

However, I disagree that these options should be avoided just so that in the future, a couple can still have a child. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

What is more important?

That a couple suffer no incoveniences whatsoever: the expense of contraception, the discomfort of tubal ligation or vasectomies, losing the chance of having a child in the future (after vasectomy or tubal ligation), the frustration of no sex (abstinance).

Or that a possibly living human being is not killed?

 

[Reshma]

Curious3141, I agree with most of the points you have made. It is indeed wrong to treat children even in their foetal stage as mere objects that can be toyed in the hands of the mother and society in general. Adoption is a very good option if the biological parents don't want to take up the responsibility.

Kerrie has made some very good points regarding unplanned pregnancies. I think the society should be better equipped morally and psychologically in dealing with such situations and render the much needed support to the mother. Cheaper availability of contraceptives is also a valid point.

Misskitty, thank you for your support. The reason no one raises this issue is female foeticide campaigners are falsely labelled Pro-feminist even though their only motive here is to save the life of the innocent unborn foetus. Probably the international community is not so well aware of the vast gender differences existing in the societies of India, China etc. The societies here irrespective of whether they are illiterate, under-educated, highly educated, economically backward or forward prefer male children to females. Females here ALWAYS have a secondary status in all orders of life.

 

[kaos]

Misskitty, thank you for your support. The reason no one raises this issue is female foeticide campaigners are falsely labelled Pro-feminist even though their only motive here is to save the life of the innocent unborn foetus. Probably the international community is not so well aware of the vast gender differences existing in the societies of India, China etc. The societies here irrespective of whether they are illiterate, under-educated, highly educated, economically backward or forward prefer male children to females. Females here ALWAYS have a secondary status in all orders of life.

i find that sad but true... women are truly prejudiced in asian society ,even before birth.

 

[Kerrie]

I agree with your point about the costs of vasectomies and tubal ligation.

However, I disagree that these options should be avoided just so that in the future, a couple can still have a child. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

What is more important?

That a couple suffer no incoveniences whatsoever: the expense of contraception, the discomfort of tubal ligation or vasectomies, losing the chance of having a child in the future (after vasectomy or tubal ligation), the frustration of no sex (abstinance).

Or that a possibly living human being is not killed?

Abstinance is ideally the best way to go to prevent unplanned pregnancies, however, the reality is, there are many people ruled by their biology. Perhaps you personally may be able to do this, many, and I mean many people cannot or will not choose this avenue. We were designed to have sex, desire sex and enjoy sex (at least most of us). This is why I feel contraception needs to be free, so people have no excuse not to use it and unplanned pregnancies do not happen. We have to deal with the reality of humanity in this situation over the ideals of it.

 

[1123581321]

look, if you have too much sex, that's your own fault, just because you want to screw everything dosn't mean you can kill living humans. the moral of the story, if you must have sex all the time, wear a condom

 

[fifiki]

look, if you have too much sex, that's your own fault, just because you want to screw everything dosn't mean you can kill living humans. the moral of the story, if you must have sex all the time, wear a condom

Umm, a condom is not 100% protective. Furthur not about having too much sex or promiscuity. Even one sexual encounter is enough for pregnancy to occur, such as with rape victims.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Umm, a condom is not 100% protective. Furthur not about having too much sex or promiscuity. Even one sexual encounter is enough for pregnancy to occur, such as with rape victims.

Perfectly true, although the condom odds are much better than the Catholic church would have you believe. And condom for the guy, pill for the gal, produces truly impressive odds in favor of no unwanted aftereffects.