News Should abortion be considered murder?

[lawtonfogle]

thank you for explaining. Now anyone can argue my 1,2,3,4,5 rules, so i can improve badparts of them.

 

[Kerrie]

I agree! We have had so many of these threads, I'm sick of them, they go nowhere, become flame wars and then get locked.

Another concern of mine is people that are unfit to be parents that end up abusing, torturing and killing these unwanted children, but that seems to be of no concern to the pro-lifers. Where is the moral outrage at this? Where are the protests? They just want to tell people what they shouldn't do but don't want to be bothered with the problems after the fact. Now I shouldn't say that as a blanket statement because there are a few (way too few) that really do care about the children, but most only care that abortion goes against their "morals". Does child abuse not go against their morals?

I agree with this 100% Evo, I am pro-choice and pregnant myself. We had this discussion on abortion very recently...here is the link:


Abortion

I was quite active in this thread, right when I found out that I was pregnant ironically.

 

[BobG]

1. If you don't want a baby, don't have sex.
2. If you find yourself pregant, put the baby up for adoption
3. If raped, don't punish the child, instead follow number 2.
4. If your health causes serious health risk if you have a baby, then don't have sex
5. If your problem is 3. and 4. then take a morning after pill (since it only ups the chances of a natural abortion occurring).

I chose anti-abortion (there's a few instances where I think it would be acceptable, but those instances are very rare).

I agree with 2, 3, and 5, but not so much with 1 & 4.

I find it ironic that those most opposed to abortion also oppose artificial birth control (probably doesn't apply to lawtonfogle, personally, considering option 5). Abstinence may be the most effective birth control method, but you have to include other birth control methods as well if you want to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies overall (but the user assumes the risk they won't work).

The health issues can apply to both the mother and the child. What's the advantage of continuing a pregnancy where at best, you trade the mother's life for the child's life, and, at worst, you wind up with neither having much chance of surviving. I also think abortions are acceptable for birth defects where the fetus has little to no chance of eventually becoming a self-sustaining adult.

Being anti-abortion isn't quite the same thing as believing it should be illegal. Still, at a minimum, it should be illegal during the last trimester. By that time, you've reached a point where it's awful hard to deny you're killing a concious, sentient person. If you had a test you could do using amniotic fluid to tell when the fetus had most likely developed into a sentient being, that would be the best dividing line between legal and illegal.

 

[Kerrie]

The health issues can apply to both the mother and the child. What's the advantage of continuing a pregnancy where at best, you trade the mother's life for the child's life, and, at worst, you wind up with neither having much chance of surviving. I also think abortions are acceptable for birth defects where the fetus has little to no chance of eventually becoming a self-sustaining adult.

I agree with this 100%...having a severe down's syndrome child in my family has opened my eyes to a lot of things. Typically, this genetic problem is an instance due to the mother being older, but in my family's case it is hereditary. Knowing this, I was fully screened during my first trimester for these genetic problems so that I could be informed of the condition of my child.

Being anti-abortion isn't quite the same thing as believing it should be illegal. Still, at a minimum, it should be illegal during the last trimester. By that time, you've reached a point where it's awful hard to deny you're killing a concious, sentient person. If you had a test you could do using amniotic fluid to tell when the fetus had most likely developed into a sentient being, that would be the best dividing line between legal and illegal.

Again, I agree 100% with this. Although I am pro-choice during the first trimester, I don't feel it is anyone's right to choose what is right for a woman and her life. I wouldn't have any problem with abortion being illegal after 16 weeks (2nd trimester) gestation, maybe due to my own personal experience of having children however.

 

[lawtonfogle]

one type of abortions i don't like are those that are done to teenagers who 'play-around'. I bleive pre-fornication is wrong. If she has a child, the grand-parents (all 4) should help raise the child and let the mom and/or dad finish school.

 

[Moonbear]

one type of abortions i don't like are those that are done to teenagers who 'play-around'. I bleive pre-fornication is wrong. If she has a child, the grand-parents (all 4) should help raise the child and let the mom and/or dad finish school.

I wasn't going to get back into this discussion, but this sort of comment suggests a complete unawareness of the conditions that many children are raised in and the sort of life one is condemning an unwanted child to.

What if the grandparents aren't around, or the teen got into this situation because her and her partner's own parents were rather irresponsible about supervising their whereabouts and activities and in giving them the education they needed about sexual responsibility? And what about the teen who is a runaway, living on the streets, prostituting herself, and abusing alcohol, crack, and heroine? There's a reason the foster-care system is filled with crack babies, AIDS babies, and developmentally challenged children; it's because nobody is stepping up to the plate to adopt them. What if this is one of those teens who herself was born to too young of parents and/or completely irresponsible/neglectful parents and has been bouncing around the foster care system? Who is going to raise her baby for her when she isn't even grown up enough to act responsibly for herself?

Are you also aware of the greater risk of complications in teenage pregnancy, especially for very young teens? Their bodies may be capable of getting pregnant, but they are not developed enough to carry and deliver a baby safely. Are you willing to pay for their prenatal care and for their postpartum care and for the care of that baby when there is nobody willing or able to to care for it, and for all the hospital bills when that baby is born premature because young teens have a higher incidence of premature births than older women?

If you are going to force these women to have children they can neither afford nor care for, then put your money where your mouth is and start paying the bills to care for and raise them all the way from the pre-natal care through adulthood. And if women are not permitted to have an abortion even if severe development abnormalities are detected in utero, then be willing to continue supporting those children even into adulthood if they can never be independent.

This is what I mean by not just taking care of the fetus but taking care of the child. It's not enough to say you think the child should be cared for, but one needs to actually put their money where their mouth is and start doing something about it.

 

[learningphysics]

These discussions always take a wrong turn. The real issues are, when does the fetus become a person... what kind of value does the fetus have.

Some of those against abortion see killing the fetus as pretty much the same thing as killing the born baby.

The issue of nobody being able to care for a child applies even after the child is born. So is terminating the child after birth acceptable? If not, then obviously the issue is not the difficulty in caring for the child, but something else... whether or not the fetus is a living being or not.

 

[Evo]

Before the ninth week it is not a fetus. First trimester abortions do not abort fetuses.

 

[russ_watters]

I have very little to add to this thread except to state that I'm the resident right winger (supposedly) and I'm pro choice.

That, and:

Being anti-abortion isn't quite the same thing as believing it should be illegal.

...and the corollary is also true. I'm pro choice and anti-abortion.

 

[megas]

i agree with pengwuino, this shouldn't even be an issue... first of all, if you want to kill your own child you shouldn't have had sex. You think about the responsiblities NOT the consquences... It is murder if you kill a fetus, and if that is legal that's stupid becuase then hey i want to kill my teenage kid! that's dumb too, that is what all you pro chioce people are saying! This is rediculas. I can't believe people would do this, people have sex to bring a kid into the world, now a days, "pro chioce people" probably do this, becuase it feels good, where has our morals gone?

 

[Moonbear]

I can't believe people would do this, people have sex to bring a kid into the world, now a days, "pro chioce people" probably do this, becuase it feels good, where has our morals gone?

Unfortunately, that's not the way things happen in reality. It's also not true that people who are pro-choice do not think about the consequences of having sex. And it's not an accurate depiction to lump everyone who is pro-choice together and assume they are irresponsible in their sexual behavior or would automatically choose to abort a pregnancy if the were pregnant. It also remains the case that abortions are not sought only by teens with unwanted pregnancies. There are married couples who learn through amniocentesis or ultrasounds that the zygote or fetus, depending on stage of pregnancy, that there are severe genetic or developmental abnormalities, and choose to abort because they do not wish to bring a child into the world who will have an extremely poor quality of life, or because they are simply unable to care for such a child and know that nobody else will be any better able to care for such a child, so choose not to bring a child into the world only to suffer.

 

[misskitty]

To begin with, why is it 'pro-choice' and 'anti-abortion'! Using pro gives a postive sense, while using anti gives a negative sense. Why not use 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' or 'anti-life' and 'anti-abortion! By having the two different senses, you are making 'pro-choice' seem the better option to one who does not have any idea what all the terms mean. Is not pro better that anti?

The way you have written the choices, you show you are pro-choice (to a stereotyper at least). The choices make it look like the 'anti-abortion' look bad.

If you think due to this argument that I am a 'pro-life', then you are stereotyping. I am just telling you what you are doing.

Later I will tell you my opinion on the entire situation.

I understand where you are coming from lawtonfogle. I respect your position. I have to say that I chose that particular terminology because I wasn't sure what to use. It wasn't an attempt to make one choice seem more positive than another. I knew this thread was going to offend people no matter how I worded anything. It isn't my intent to offend anyone. I'm not trying to sterotype anyone either. My deepest apologies are extended to any and everyone who has viewed and posted in this thread if I have offended or disturbed anyone.

 

[misskitty]

I also think, so as to clear up confusion, you tell us what your definitions are of key words such as abortions, person, human, murder, human life, ect. Postmondernism states indirectly that we can have different deffintions for such words, and since your deffinitoin might be different, your understanding of the question/reply might also be different than intended.

Again, an understandable and respected query. I do not have any 'specific' definitions for any of these terms. I was attempting to be as general as possible. The closest I could possibly come to defining any of these terms would be the following:

Murder: the intentional termination of another's life
Human: a bipedal primate mammal
Human Life: the physical exsistance of a bipedal primate mammal
Person:the physical, mental, and emotional characteristics of a human, actually I'm beginning to think the definition of human would be the same as person.
Abortion:the intentional termination of a human pregnancy.

This is all I can really define. Again I was trying to be general so these are close to an actual definition. I'm going to apologize ahead of time if any of these definitions offend anyone in any way whatsoever.

 

[misskitty]

I agree! We have had so many of these threads, I'm sick of them, they go nowhere, become flame wars and then get locked.

Evo, I'm sorry if my questioning of the general public of PF on the issue of abortion makes you sick or disgusted. I also extend my apologies to you if this thread bothers you.

 

[misskitty]

Yes, it's something like that. I personally would never have an abortion because I could never see myself going through with it. If I got pregnant today I'd carry the baby to term then put it up for adoption because just because I'm an idiot doesn't mean I'm going to deny a child its life. (I do think in general that people seem to downplay the option of adoption regarding unwanted pregnancies.) I will, however, not stand in the way of someone else who decides to go through with it for the first two trimesters: I'm not sure where life "begins" but if the baby can't survive on its own then I won't really get in the way of it (same goes for the morning after pill). Partial birth abortion, or destroying the fetus because of its sex/ some other foolish reason I will not stand for. Life is a great thing and destroying the potential for it is truly a sad thing, and as a result abortion should be rare.
I also don't really like the "pro choice" movement because they seem to forget that last point and instead make it a whole "women power" thing. Abortion isn't simplified into such a nice little package: it's obviously a very complicated issue or else we wouldn't be gappling so hard with it. The same goes for the pro life label: nowadays that camp seems all too willing to dub someone a murderer for mentioning that in some cases an abortion might be nessecary. I think nowadays the sides have polarized way too much, which is also a reason why I am unwilling to choose either side.

This is a good point Andromeda. I understand where you're coming from. There are times I tend to lean that way myself. I might change my position on the topic. I have strong feelings about the issue mainly because of what it is we're actually talking about. Thanks for defining your position.

 

[loseyourname]

Another concern of mine is people that are unfit to be parents that end up abusing, torturing and killing these unwanted children, but that seems to be of no concern to the pro-lifers. Where is the moral outrage at this? Where are the protests? They just want to tell people what they shouldn't do but don't want to be bothered with the problems after the fact. Now I shouldn't say that as a blanket statement because there are a few (way too few) that really do care about the children, but most only care that abortion goes against their "morals". Does child abuse not go against their morals?

Do you honestly think that people who believe abortion to be immoral do not believe child abuse to be immoral? Seems like a strawman to me.

 

[Kerrie]

Do you honestly think that people who believe abortion to be immoral do not believe child abuse to be immoral? Seems like a strawman to me.

no, I think what Evo is trying to say is, why aren't the pro-lifers expressing their verbal outrage for child abuse as much as they are expressing their views on abortion? they seem to put a lot more energy on conserving a life yet not about improving the quality of those children already alive and being abused.

 

[megas]

Abortion...MURDER!

People who had abortions are more likely to do more child abuse becuase of the stress asocciated with abortion! Also it has gotten so bad that one out of 4 people have never been born becuase of abortion, we are talking about human beings! they deserve LIFE, if that was you, wouldn't you want life? wouldn't you want to live? People who believe abortion is wrong becuase they arent giving the child a chance to live, one life to live... Its murder... I suggest reading Cantile for Lebowitz by Aurthur Miller, it proposes interesting questions about technology, and human life...

 

[lawtonfogle]

first, when i said grandparents, i meant the babies grandparents.

also, we need to teach kids to wait.

i will not try to offend anyone, but what Moonbear (to me) sounds as if he was saying is to take care of the nobodies, the excess population, kill them. that is what it sounds like to me. I understand that some people are a burrden on society, and we may have to pay for some. What one needs to know is that some of the pro-choice
would have tax money pay for abortions.

I myself would rather have taxes go to support the living than to kill unborns.

 

[lawtonfogle]

People who had abortions are more likely to do more child abuse becuase of the stress asocciated with abortion! Also it has gotten so bad that one out of 4 people have never been born becuase of abortion, we are talking about human beings! they deserve LIFE, if that was you, wouldn't you want life? wouldn't you want to live? People who believe abortion is wrong becuase they arent giving the child a chance to live, one life to live... Its murder... I suggest reading Cantile for Lebowitz by Aurthur Miller, it proposes interesting questions about technology, and human life...

when does the (fetus/zygote/baby/single cell with 46 choromoses unquie to a human) become a human?

 

[Kerrie]

People who had abortions are more likely to do more child abuse becuase of the stress asocciated with abortion! Also it has gotten so bad that one out of 4 people have never been born becuase of abortion, we are talking about human beings! they deserve LIFE, if that was you, wouldn't you want life? wouldn't you want to live? People who believe abortion is wrong becuase they arent giving the child a chance to live, one life to live... Its murder... I suggest reading Cantile for Lebowitz by Aurthur Miller, it proposes interesting questions about technology, and human life...

Please provide proof or statistics on your absolutely ridiculous claim. Please explain why those who shoot abortion doctors and bomb abortion clinics are less violent then those seeking an abortion.

 

[mattmns]

Please provide proof or statistics on your absolutely ridiculous claim. Please explain why those who shoot abortion doctors and bomb abortion clinics are less violent then those seeking an abortion.

Here is some stuff I found on google really quick.

http://www.leaderu.com/humanities/casey/ch5.html#S1

Here is another one.

http://www.rightgrrl.com/carolyn/abortioncrime.html

Probably the most significant drop in crime was seen between the years of 1993 and 1997, when Child Abuse and Suicide
Interestingly enough, legalized abortion was supposed to dramatically reduce child abuse. "Every child a wanted child!" abortion proponents cried. "Unwanted children are abused! Abortion will help end child abuse!" Aside from the fact that killing someone because they might be abused isn't very logical, child abuse has increased since the legalization of abortion. The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect indicates that the prevalence of child abuse is increasing, and the increases are "significant." From 1986 to 1993, the incidence of physical abuse rose 42% (97% under the revised Endangerment Standard), physical neglect rose 102% (163% E.S.), sexual abuse rose 83% (125% E.S.) and emotional neglect rose 333% (188% E.S.). This study did not conclude that better reporting was the reason for the increases:

"Although the rise in the population of endangered children may stem from improved recognition of more subtle cues from the child by community professionals, the rise in the number of serious injuries probably reflects a real increase in child abuse and neglect because it cannot be plausibly explained on the basis of heightened sensitivity." (source: http://www.childabuse.com/fs13.htm )

The study cited parental substance abuse, not the "unwanted" status of the child, as the major factor contributing to increases in abuse.

According to a study by Prevent Child Abuse America, child abuse reporting levels rose 41% between 1988 and 1997. This study did attribute greater public awareness and willingness to report as reasons for the sharp increase. However, the levels rose 1.7% between 1996 and 1997, despite the level of public awareness remaining relatively constant over a one-year period. (source: http://www.childabuse.com/50data97.htm )

I wonder how Levitt and Donohue explain the rise in the level of child abuse since the legalization of abortion? If we have essentially "killed off" many potential criminals through legalized abortion, as they concluded, and abortion itself was supposed to reduce child abuse, why on Earth has child abuse increased? Does this mean that only certain "types" of criminals were aborted, and those who would commit child abuse were not?

 

[Moonbear]

Also it has gotten so bad that one out of 4 people have never been born becuase of abortion, we are talking about human beings!

That's where we differ. Zygotes and fetuses are not people. If a person has never existed (never been born), they are not 1 out of 4. When you can prove to me they are sentient, independent beings, I'll start listening to the personhood argument.

I'll wait for you to back up the rest of your statistics with reliable sources.

 

[Moonbear]

What one needs to know is that some of the pro-choice
would have tax money pay for abortions.

That is a separate issue. There are "some" of any number of groups of people who support taxes for any number of other causes not supported by everyone in that group.

I myself would rather have taxes go to support the living than to kill unborns.

I too would rather money be spent to help those who are already alive than to terminate pregnancies. To me, the freedom to choose also means not being forced to pay for someone else's abortion if you do not agree with their choice, so I would not be in favor of funding abortions through taxes. Part of choice is also the choice to NOT have an abortion.

I think I'm going to extricate myself from this discussion again. The arguments are still the same and I'm too tired of the same old debate to put the effort into making my points any clearer, so there's really no point in my continuing as part of this discussion.

 

[Evo]

Quote:
Originally Posted by loseyourname
Do you honestly think that people who believe abortion to be immoral do not believe child abuse to be immoral? Seems like a strawman to me.

no, I think what Evo is trying to say is, why aren't the pro-lifers expressing their verbal outrage for child abuse as much as they are expressing their views on abortion? they seem to put a lot more energy on conserving a life yet not about improving the quality of those children already alive and being abused.

Exactly.

 

[Evo]

People who had abortions are more likely to do more child abuse becuase of the stress asocciated with abortion!

That's false. There are no statistics showing that.

Also it has gotten so bad that one out of 4 people have never been born becuase of abortion

Where on Earth are you getting this stuff? Show me a valid study that backs either of your claims up.

 

[Kerrie]

Here is some stuff I found on google really quick.

http://www.leaderu.com/humanities/casey/ch5.html#S1

Here is another one.

http://www.rightgrrl.com/carolyn/abortioncrime.html

no where were there statistics, but only what a pyschiatrists specualtes. the incidences of child abuse increasing significantly since abortion has been legalized does not show a direct correlation between the two, but only specualtion and twisting of facts in order to convince others of what these people want others to see. sorry, your sources are bogus, especially since one site comes from a biblical college, which of course is going to be biased against the facts.

 

[Evo]

Evo, I'm sorry if my questioning of the general public of PF on the issue of abortion makes you sick or disgusted. I also extend my apologies to you if this thread bothers you.

No, no, no,misskitty! I didn't mean it that way, I feel terrible. I meant that I am sick of the fact that the topic cannot be discussed in a civil manner.

 

[mattmns]

no where were there statistics, but only what a pyschiatrists specualtes. the incidences of child abuse increasing significantly since abortion has been legalized does not show a direct correlation between the two, but only specualtion and twisting of facts in order to convince others of what these people want others to see. sorry, your sources are bogus, especially since one site comes from a biblical college, which of course is going to be biased against the facts.

I was just pointing out the ideas of psychologist/groups. I am not sure if such statistics would exist: I do not think anyone would ask a child abuser about their stance on abortion.

If you mean statistics as in the 1 in 4 children then I am not sure about that. I have heard that about 35million (up to 1997) abortions have been performed since abortion became legal. I am not sure if that would be 1 in 4 or not.

Source: http://www.californiaprolife.org/abortion/aborstats.html

Here is an interesting part of that site.

Nearly all of the 1.3 million abortions a year are done because the woman did not want to be pregnant at that particular time (although 70% say they intend to have children in the future). The majority of women undergoing an abortion give one or more of the following reasons:

* a baby would interfere with work, school, or other responsibilities (75%)
* cannot afford to have a child (66%)
* do not want to be a single parent or have problems in the relationship with their husband or partner (50%)
* Only 1% of women aborting say they have been advised that their unborn baby has a defect, and only I% say they became pregnant by rape or incest. (Facts in Brief, The Alan Guttmacher Institute, September 1995.)

 

[Andromeda321]

In response to mattmns's statistics, gah you people, what's wrong with adoption?!? There are people who want to adopt kids so much right now in this country that they're literally willing to go to the ends of the Earth to do it and it's at no cost to you...
Sorry everyone, it just seems that the reasonings cited are rather selfish ones. I mean yes you messed up your life a bit by getting pregnant and don't want to mess up another but out of that you can give arguably the greatest gift possible to a person by giving them life. (Not to mention the happiness of the family who can have kids when they themselves cannot.)

 

[Kerrie]

It's just my thought andromeda, but going through a pregnancy and then giving up that baby could be extremely difficult. Also, a woman can't easily hide her pregnancy after she gets so far along thus, abortion is her option if she doesn't want others to know she got pregnant for whatever reasons. For some women, being pregnant and unmarried is a nightmare. I agree with what you are saying about adoption, however, being pregnant myself and then giving up my baby would be extremely heartwrenching, and could leave a scar as big as going through an abortion.

 

[Evo]

Abortion was legalized in the US because of the high incidence of death, sterility and other serious side affects of illegal abortions. But this mostly only happened to the poor, the rich could "arrange" medical abortions for their daughters, either through a friend or relative or by flying their daughter to a country where abortion was legal. But I guess none of you bothered to research why abortion was legalized here? Do you really think that making abortion illegal again is going to stop abortion? Are you really that naive?

Without abortion, there would not be nearly enough people willing to adopt, think of the millions of children doomed to live out their lives in an orphanage. How are we as a nation going to handle the expense? When do we cut off the care? Can we ever cut off the care to those that don't adapt? They will end up on welfare or in prisons. Have you ever thought this through? You say "stop abortion", ok then what? These women that now can't work, can't go to school, they also become burdens on society. Not everyone has a loving, supporting family that they can turn to for help. Not everyone is as fortunate as you.

What we need to be focusing on is more education and birth control for the young. We need to focus on preventing unwanted pregnancies.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Logical Reasoning in Support of Abortion: Not Just Pro-Choice Arguments

1. There are already enough children, who need homes, and some couples are petty and have unfair expectations; adoption shouldn't be perceived as, like in a dog pound, where people want "the cute one." We don't need more children in the world when people are starving.

2. Population control: Darwinism shows that an excessive population results in Darwinistic tendencies; shouldn’t we not kill things and fight over resources?

3. If you’re concerned about the possibility of a future living human, you should wonder about the unborn child. If a woman has one child, she may give the baby to an adopting family; however, that is one less child getting adopted because the family is satisfied. What happens when an excessive amount of babies are available? The child becomes the responsibility of the mother. She may have two children when she grows up, but she one of her children will be born early - the child may struggle through hardship and become less likely to benefit society; however, if the mother waits, she will become more of a benefit to society, and the her future 1st child will have a greater chance at success in life.

4. If the mother hasn't had the child and doesn't want it, then the child has no value to society. Why should society value the life of something that doesn't contribute to its well being? Should society value this "feeling matter" because someone will mourn its loss? No, because the mother, who has the right to lament its death, does not want it. So, basically, society should value a noncontributing, order disturbing, improperly timed, negatively life altering and logically defying agglomeration? I think not.

 

[mattmns]

Without abortion, there would not be nearly enough people willing to adopt, think of the millions of children doomed to live out their lives in an orphanage. How are we as a nation going to handle the expense? When do we cut off the care? Can we ever cut off the care to those that don't adapt? They will end up on welfare or in prisons. Have you ever thought this through? You say "stop abortion", ok then what? These women that now can't work, can't go to school, they also become burdens on society. Not everyone has a loving, supporting family that they can turn to for help. Not everyone is as fortunate as you.

What we need to be focusing on is more education and birth control for the young. We need to focus on preventing unwanted pregnancies.

Yes we should be focusing on preventing unwanted pregnancies. But what are people supposed to think? "Hey we can have sex, I will just get an abortion if I become pregnant." (not that I heard anyone say this) My reasoning is this: If you are not ready to have a baby (due to work, school, etc) then do not have sex.

 

[learningphysics]

4. If the mother hasn't had the child and doesn't want it, then the child has no value to society. Why should society value the life of something that doesn't contribute to its well being? Should society value this "feeling matter" because someone will mourn its loss? No, because the mother, who has the right to lament its death, does not want it. So, basically, society should value a noncontributing, order disturbing, improperly timed, negatively life altering and logically defying agglomeration? I think not.

Why does it matter whether or not the mother has had the child? Why doesn't your reasoning apply AFTER the child has been born? Or does it apply? Why should society value the life of a baby that doesn't contribute to its well being?

 

[Evo]

I'm saying that people need to get off of their respective bandwagons of whether abortion should be legal or illegal since abortion will not stop, only how it is done.

Abortions have taken place all through history and will continue. People need to stop hiding their heads in the sand. I hear "if you don't want a child, don't have sex". So, you're saying that people should only have sex when they wish to get the woman pregnant? How many people here, honestly, can say that they have only had sex with the intention of having a child? Is that realistic?

Let's face it folks, people are going to have sex. Parents that will not allow their children access to birth control are in denial of reality. Yes, there are some that can control themselves, kudos to them, but reading the threads here, it seems those are definitely not the norm.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

When born at a time the mother chooses, a baby can be a source of happiness -children can cause happiness when raised during an appropriate time and when loved. Furthermore, the child is tangibly avaliable to everyone. Other people are brought jubilation by its presence - the joy is more intense when watching a mother love a child, since to see dislike, in a mother's eyes, is not an enjoyable feeling. Have you never seen a mother, in a store, drag a child around like it's a burden - the look of scorn she can present is often horrifying.

 

[Pengwuino]

Abortion on page 9 in like 4 days... saw that coming :D

 

[learningphysics]

When born at a time the mother chooses, a baby can be a source of happiness -children can cause happiness when raised during an appropriate time and when loved. Furthermore, the child is tangibly avaliable to everyone. Other people are brought jubilation by its presence - the joy is more intense when watching a mother love a child, since to see dislike, in a mother's eyes, is not an enjoyable feeling. Have you never seen a mother, in a store, drag a child around like it's a burden - the look of scorn she can present is often horrifying.

Well, the prospect of a child that is going to be born can also bring joy to many. And the abortion brings unhappiness to many. However the feelings of the mother take precedence over the feelings of others. Why should this change after birth?

So is it acceptable to kill a child that is unwanted by the mother?

Here's what you said:

Should society value this "feeling matter" because someone will mourn its loss? No, because the mother, who has the right to lament its death, does not want it. So, basically, society should value a noncontributing, order disturbing, improperly timed, negatively life altering and logically defying agglomeration? I think not.

Everything written above applies to a born child that is unwanted by the mother. Why one set of rules after birth, another set before birth.

 

[Evo]

Well, the prospect of a child that is going to be born can also bring joy to many. And the abortion brings unhappiness to many.

And the prospect of a child that is going to be born can bring despair, fear, ostracization and humiliation, to the point that many women getting pregnant at the wrong time has caused them to take their own lives.

 

[learningphysics]

And the prospect of a child that is going to be born can bring despair, fear, ostracization and humiliation, to the point that many women getting pregnant at the wrong time has caused them to take their own lives.

Yes, and a child that has already been born can bring despair and fear to the mother's life. Can we terminate this child?

What I'm getting at is that these issues of care, welfare, adoption, lack of financial reousrces to care for the child... are getting away from the real issue... whether or not the unborn child is alive, has rights etc...

 

[Evo]

are getting away from the real issue... whether or not the unborn child is alive, has rights etc...

Which my point is that abortion will continue, legal or illegal, but more harm is done by illegal abortion.

So should we make abortion illegal so that we can all pat ourselves on the back and stick our heads in the sand and pretend that the problem is gone?

 

[learningphysics]

Which my point is that abortion will continue, legal or illegal, but more harm is done by illegal abortion.

So should we make abortion illegal so that we can all pat ourselves on the back and stick our heads in the sand and pretend that the problem is gone?

If the unborn child is a human, and has the rights of a human, then isn't it critical to stop it from happening?

If abortion is illegal, then at least the numbers will go down. It will work as a deterrent at least. No punishment to any crime is perfect. Murder still takes place, rape still takes place, theft still takes place... do we just forget about punishing the criminals because the crimes still happen?

Would you give such a response to any other crime? Child abuse will take place whether or not it is made illegal, but illegal child abuse creates more harm?

I'm not saying abortion is a crime, or that the unborn has the same rights as a human... but IF it does... then we have to treat abortion as any other crime, and do our best to prevent it from happening.

The critical issue is the rights of the unborn child... what these rights are etc...

 

[Evo]

I'm not saying abortion is a crime, or that the unborn has the same rights as a human... but IF it does... then we have to treat abortion as any other crime, and do our best to prevent it from happening.

The critical issue is the rights of the unborn child... what these rights are etc...

This is where it gets dangerous. Until after the 8th week, it is not a fetus, it is an embryo. Many women will spontaneously abort (miscarry) during this period. When a woman miscarries during this time, no death of an infant is recorded, no death certificate. Can you imagine trying to record every miscarriage into public record?

If we were to claim that an embryo was a fully developed person and had all human rights, we get into a very problamatic situation. If a woman miscarried during this time, does she have to bring in the contents of her toilet bowl, sheets, underwear, etc... so it can be determined (how I wouldn't know) that she was not in some way responsible for it's "death". Will we start throwing women into jail for horseback riding, or mountain biking or improper nutrition? Does she have to give a name to something not visible to the naked eye, get a death certificate and have it buried?

What about someone that doesn't like her and claims the miscarriage was an "intentional" abortion?

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

One set of rules is designed around the integration of a being into society; the other is based on the choice whether or not a child is appropriate at a certain time. Something, a child, that is part of society should not be removed from it when it can contribute and would be physically willing, in the future, to be thankful for its life; this can be turned around, I know, but I can refute that opposite arguements. For example, an aborted child who lives would be thankful for life, but so would the theoretical unborn child who doesn't result because of a failure to abort - the child who would live a happier life.

An unborn child has no logical rights. The embracing of paradoxically moral beliefs has to be done through the acceptance that there is no real altruism. You have no need to care for the unborn child, unless you are expecting it; nevertheless, you should want the best for the mother and the future, theoretical, happier child that may never be born because of a failure to abort.

 

[Kerrie]

I don't think many realize how many spontaneous abortions really do occur in women. I think the rate is 1 in 3? Anyhow, Evo, I have to agree 110% with what you are saying here. It's about a woman's safety, health, life, and rights of her body that are above the unborn child. This is the main factor in why it is legal, more of a practical reason over a moral one. In this instance, one must be practical over being moral. You cannot tell anyone to stop having sex, it's just not going to happen. But you can provide birth control and education to prevent these unwanted pregnancies.

It's a sad fact that it is done, but no matter what it will continue to be done regardless of what morals are cast upon our society. Women usually cannot obtain an abortion after 16 weeks, and some clinics won't go past 12 weeks, which is the time that miscarriage is most likely to happen anyway. It doesn't matter why she is choosing to abort, if she wants it to happen and seeks whatever means, we need to protect her from an unsterile environment and untrained people who do not know how to perform the procedure.

 

[Rev Prez]

I'm saying that people need to get off of their respective bandwagons of whether abortion should be legal or illegal since abortion will not stop, only how it is done.

Neither will fraud, murder, or any number of illegal activities.

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

This is where it gets dangerous.

I don't see why. By the time a pregnancy is detected after the third week, and the rate of miscarriage falls off http://www.pregnancyloss.info/statistics.htm . The state can adopt a simple two track system (log a pregnancy, log its end) that sufficiently scales to meet its new obligations for a little less effort than it takes to log a birth and fill out a death certificate.

Can you imagine trying to record every miscarriage into public record?

Yes. Given the overwhelming majority of detected spontoneous abortions will occur under circumstances no more suspicious than the menstrual cycle, the only issue remaining is to track pregnancies. In that case, the objections collapse to only those which fall out of the theory of privacy and balanced interests arrived at in Roe v. Wade.

Besides, granting personhood status to the fetus attaches legal obligations to seek and provide pre-natal care. Is that a bad thing?

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

Logical Reasoning in Support of Abortion: Not Just Pro-Choice Arguments

These are arguments in support of a host of other controversial programs, including but not limited to killing born children. So, to avoid blurring a distinction between the fetus and the born you have to deny personhood to the fetus--that brings you right back to what we're talking about.

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

Abortion was legalized in the US because of the high incidence of death, sterility and other serious side affects of illegal abortions.

Really? Where in Roe v. Wade did you find that little gem?

Rev Prez