Abortion

[Asmodean]

Why is choice superior to life in this case? And I can't accept the last point as valid since there is a HUGE waiting line for adopting new born babies.

Why SHOULDN'T choce be superior to life in this case?  Why does the woman have no control over what happens with and inside of her own body?  I tell you what, if men could get pregnant, this would NOT be such a hotly debated topic.

I get bored with life - I play chicken with a freight train - Choice trumps life. Or here is another one: I sign a DNR - doctors stand there biting their fingernails - Choice trumps life.

OR a woman can choose to surgically remove a part of her body - Choice trumps internal organs.

Another thing: Titan, you said earlier in this thread that if you replace the word fetus with the word child, the whole "dilemma" will come into a different light. I was refering to the fetus as "kid" throughout this and other threads like it (unless more scientific language was expected) and it doesn't change a thing. As long as it's a part of that woman's body, abortion should be her option should she wish it.

[DennisK]

...I am curious how Dennis K feels about it as he's ex-Catholic too.

While I was raised Catholic, I wasn't fully orthodox.  Since I was anti-church through my teens, I didn't get my full indoctrination.  Abortion was never mentioned to me by my family or priest.  I am pro choice and like others on this forum, I feel it is totally up to the woman who has the unborn baby soul from jesus in her belly.  It's really not for me or certainly not for any bible thumper to say what anyone should do with their bodies.

[DennisK]

I don't know if I want to debate this fully or not, I kind of just want to get your opinions on it.

I have a feeling you knew from the start you wanted to debate this issue.  Hence, the post.

[Sophus]

Wow. I was the only one to say never. Thought Titan would agree with me there. Althoug I'm sure there's a more complicated scenario that could be presented to me and I would agree that it would be acceptable for an abortion (Ex: Mother will surely die and the child will too most likely).

[Titan]

MariaEvri

Theres also the psychological: This costs a life time not just "9 months". You were violated, you body is no longer yours, you are an incubator for an evil man's seed, a deed that you hated and loathed, you watch yourself get huger and huger, and you relieve the moment everyday.

Again I say, yes you were violated and that is something despicable and evil but you can create something great out of that.

I dont think women go to abortion without thinking twice, thrice or even four times. They arenot happy about killing a future life, but considering all of the above, and considering "killing" a bunch of cells,thenno, thanks. I want only the pchychological pain, not the physical as well. It s abortion for me

But when you create the option of understanding that something else may be living and that your choice > their life you create problems that will run throughout more of society then you realize.

Jolly Sapper

Why is it considered "punishment"? Is the "child" going to go to hell? Would not an innocent be spirited straight to the pearly gates?

A point that is brought up quite often but which misses two important elements.
1. The child the will to choose to follow God or not. You deny the child free will.
2. You have no right to take life since you are not the author of life and you do not place value on it.

Wraitchel

Why would you put the fetus's right to life above that of the woman to live her life.

If you consider the fetus a living human then this question is hardly debatable...it would be clear that your right to comfort does not trump someone else's right to life.

It is risk and pain and it takes over your life.

Many studies have argued that abortion presents just as much of a problem. How many women who have had the child from rape have regretted that child completely? I realize that you don't have statistics on that and I don't expect you to scrounge around for them but that is just food for thought.

I know I am not stating this well, but pregnancy and childbirth are so much more than "nine months' inconvenience" that I cannot even put it into words. That statement is what proves you are a man and cannot understand.

You act like it is only men against abortion for these reasons. Many many many women who have had children still disagree with the right to abortions in the cases of rape.

What about women who must work and care for an existing family?

Give the child up to adoption, there are so many people who want to adopt new born children.

What about drugs she should take to prevent aids and STD's from her rape?

Do you have some specific drugs you are talking about here that create such problems?

What about an alcoholic or mentally ill woman?

Please explain the problems here.

What about a woman who is seriously depressed or has a body that just wasn't meant to bear?

If the woman's life is in danger I believe that abortions should be allowed.

Legally, life begins at birth.

What about partial birth abortions?

rlrose328

Yes, all men are created equal and deserve right guaranteed by our constitution (I'll let the "by their Creator" thing go).

You better, I didn't add it to the Declaration.

But when the Supreme Court interpreted the constitution in Roe v. Wade, Chief Justice Blackmun stated that the constitution applies to post-natal persons only and has no application to those pre-natal.

Which constitutional law did they interpret in this instance?

Were I an ancient Greek or a Jew, I'd say personhood doesn't start until the baby is delivered (or half delivered as the Jews consider it). Through the middle ages, it was believed that a soul doesn't occupy the body until 40 days for a male and 90 days for a female, so CHRISTIANS set abortion limits at 90 days from conception. Since then, most non-Catholic denominations believed that it is a up to the person to decide while Catholics have always believe in the at-conception ideal.

I believe that these ideas have fundamental flaws in their definitions of life since they are rather arbitrary limits.

For me, I'd say I support abortion for pregnancies between 6 weeks, when the embryo develops brain waves, and 8 weeks, when the last vestiges of gills and a tail disappear.

Why at these points? And if you use the brain one: can we kill people who have made it previously clear that they want to be kept alive if the go into a coma?

You are correct... I can't possibly know that. It's just my opinion as a woman in a male-centric world. It is an illogical opinion.

You realize that this is the same logic used by Christians who say that atheists are just in denial of God even though they really know He exists...They say it is a logical opinion too because people who come to the faith attest to such a position.

Laetusatheos

Titan, most people who are trying to adopt want healthy white babies (and are usually picky about gender too).

My family was on the waiting list, we didn't specify and we still never got the chance. If what you are saying is true then why are people adopting children from Asia?

What about crack babies...babies with aids...downs syndrone....not all babies are easy to adopt out. That's why the wait list is so long...it's not that there aren't babies to be adopted it's that there aren't many babies of a certain type waiting to be adopted.

Wouldn't aborting such babies be discrimination based on a disease?

[Jolly Sapper]

Jolly Sapper

    Why is it considered "punishment"? Is the "child" going to go to hell? Would not an innocent be spirited straight to the pearly gates?


A point that is brought up quite often but which misses two important elements.
1. The child the will to choose to follow God or not. You deny the child free will.
2. You have no right to take life since you are not the author of life and you do not place value on it.

This depends on just what exactly is defined as life and when exactly this occurs.  A mass of undifferentiated cells in a petri dish is considered life, but it isn't protected by the same moral standard.  

In response to your point #1:  In either way somebody is denied their free will.  Either a person who is able to think and learn from the experience, or a mass of cells that may or may not become a person.  

In response to #2:  Huh?  This doesn't make sense.  Either you are meaning that God created all life and is responsible for life, therefor its only up to God whether or not an abortion occurs (in which case, how do you tell if a woman choosing to have an abortion is not being lead by God to do so?)  Or you are trying to tell me that since its not my sperm that fertilized an egg, I don't have any say in the matter (which would mean that if the sperm that fertilized the egg was mine then I or the woman who the egg belonged to, would have a say in whether or not an abortion would be sought.)

I place a lot of value on life, but I also think that reality trumps how I'd like the world to function.  Hence, my believe that safe-medical-abortions should not be made illegal.

[Titan]

This depends on just what exactly is defined as life and when exactly this occurs. A mass of undifferentiated cells in a petri dish is considered life, but it isn't protected by the same moral standard.

Exactly, that's the point I was considering at the very beginning of this thread where I asked why there isn't more of a divergence among Christians...as in why don't more Christians believe that life begins at birth rather than conception or somewhere in between.

In response to your point #1: In either way somebody is denied their free will. Either a person who is able to think and learn from the experience, or a mass of cells that may or may not become a person.

This leads dangerously close to justifing the slaughter of less intelligent people. Someone's right to choose should never trump another HUMAN BEINGS (again, you have to define what a human being is) right to life.

In response to #2: Huh? This doesn't make sense. Either you are meaning that God created all life and is responsible for life, therefor its only up to God whether or not an abortion occurs (in which case, how do you tell if a woman choosing to have an abortion is not being lead by God to do so?)

That would be like a murderer arguing that God lead him to murder the innocent children...the response is "I'm sorry but that doesn't match up."

Or you are trying to tell me that since its not my sperm that fertilized an egg, I don't have any say in the matter (which would mean that if the sperm that fertilized the egg was mine then I or the woman who the egg belonged to, would have a say in whether or not an abortion would be sought.)

No because what stops you from killing the child at another given point far far later in life? For the same reason?

I place a lot of value on life, but I also think that reality trumps how I'd like the world to function. Hence, my believe that safe-medical-abortions should not be made illegal.

Should safe effective murders be legal to? Since reality trumps how we want the world to function, they are going to happen anyway, might as well make it quick and clean.

[rlrose328]

Yes, all men are created equal and deserve right guaranteed by our constitution (I'll let the "by their Creator" thing go).

You better, I didn't add it to the Declaration.

Yes, I know... the deists that wrote the Constitution did believe in a creator.  But I don't and having that in the Constitution violates the church/state separation issue that Thomas Jefferson himself proposed.

But when the Supreme Court interpreted the constitution in Roe v. Wade, Chief Justice Blackmun stated that the constitution applies to post-natal persons only and has no application to those pre-natal.

Which constitutional law did they interpret in this instance?.

They used mainly the Fourteenth Amendment (Due Process).  Here is the summation from the Roe v. Wade decision:

[spoiler:3njnnj9l]To summarize and to repeat:

1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life  may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

2. The State may define the term "physician," as it has been employed in the preceding paragraphs of this Part XI of this opinion, to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined.

In Doe v. Bolton, post, p. 179, procedural requirements contained in one of the modern abortion statutes are considered. That opinion and this one, of course, are to be read together.  

This holding, we feel, is consistent with the relative weights of the respective interests involved, with the lessons and examples of medical and legal history, with the lenity of the common law, and with the demands of the profound problems of the present day. The decision leaves the State free to place increasing restrictions on abortion as the period of pregnancy lengthens, so long as those restrictions are tailored to the recognized state interests. The decision vindicates the right of the physician to administer medical treatment according to his professional judgment up to the points where important [p166] state interests provide compelling justifications for intervention. Up to those points, the abortion decision in all its aspects is inherently, and primarily, a medical decision, and basic responsibility for it must rest with the physician. If an individual practitioner abuses the privilege of exercising proper medical judgment, the usual remedies, judicial and intra-professional, are available.[/spoiler:3njnnj9l]

If you want more info on exactly what some of that means, see Section IX of that same document.  Here is a paragraph from Section X that I find important:

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the "compelling" point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that, until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health. Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like.

Were I an ancient Greek or a Jew, I'd say personhood doesn't start until the baby is delivered (or half delivered as the Jews consider it). Through the middle ages, it was believed that a soul doesn't occupy the body until 40 days for a male and 90 days for a female, so CHRISTIANS set abortion limits at 90 days from conception. Since then, most non-Catholic denominations believed that it is a up to the person to decide while Catholics have always believe in the at-conception ideal.

I believe that these ideas have fundamental flaws in their definitions of life since they are rather arbitrary limits..

At the risk of being snide... of COURSE you do.  I'd expect nothing less.  Those with avid pro-life stances choose to ignore any measurements but the ones they set themselves; most often, it's the "at conception" timeframe.

For me, I'd say I support abortion for pregnancies between 6 weeks, when the embryo develops brain waves, and 8 weeks, when the last vestiges of gills and a tail disappear.

Why at these points? And if you use the brain one: can we kill people who have made it previously clear that they want to be kept alive if the go into a coma? .

Please refrain from using my words against me by exagerating a statement.  Of course I wouldn't kill someone who has made it clear they wish to be kept alive.  What an utterly stupid thing to say.  I'm talking about a being who, until that 6 weeks, is merely a group of cells that is feeding off of the host (mother).  (For the record, I support euthanasia as well.)

I gave you a timeframe I'd be comfortable supporting in ALL instances, but I do support a woman's right to have an abortion at any time in the pregnancy that she chooses, though I'd like stringent restrictions on late-term abortions (those you refer to by the misnomer "live birth" abortions).

You are correct... I can't possibly know that. It's just my opinion as a woman in a male-centric world. It is an illogical opinion.

You realize that this is the same logic used by Christians who say that atheists are just in denial of God even though they really know He exists...They say it is a logical opinion too because people who come to the faith attest to such a position.

Yes, I realize that... I said you are correct, can we just leave it at that?  Besides, I said it's an ILLOGICAL opinion.  Men would probably want the freedom to choose what to do with their bodies just as much as women.

[Jolly Sapper]

In response to your point #1: In either way somebody is denied their free will. Either a person who is able to think and learn from the experience, or a mass of cells that may or may not become a person.

This leads dangerously close to justifing the slaughter of less intelligent people. <-- I smell a straw man argument -JS Someone's right to choose should never trump another HUMAN BEINGS (again, you have to define what a human being is) right to life.

But it isn't a human being is it?  Its little more than a mass of cells, that can spontaneously abort at any moment.

That would be like a murderer arguing that God lead him to murder the innocent children...the response is "I'm sorry but that doesn't match up."

Your description was that the "author" of life gets to choose what happens to that life, maybe I misunderstood, but technically any non-virgin birth that I'm involved in would make me an author no?  If God has the power or intention to stop an abortion, then they wouldn't happen correct?  If an abortion is allowed, then how am I to know if it happened against or because of God's will?

No because what stops you from killing the child at another given point far far later in life? For the same reason?

Common decency mostly, unless self defense or some other situation where ending somebody's misery might be their wish (free will, right?).

Should safe effective murders be legal to? Since reality trumps how we want the world to function, they are going to happen anyway, might as well make it quick and clean.

I think this may be another straw man argument.  A "safe effective murder" depends on the ability of somebody being able to quickly kill another without their permission, and get away without being harmed in the process, not to mention that the whole point (as I understand it) is that a murder is illegal.  If a murder wasn't illegal, then it wouldn't be a murder right?

[Wraitchel]

When I mentioned ill women and women who are depressed or too young or whatever, I was not using them as cases in which there would be a higher likelihood of bad outcomes for the offspring. I meant that it would harm the woman to bear an unwanted child. Titan, you don't seem to care at all about the women. I guarantee that if abortion is made illegal AGAIN, desperate women will risk their lives to procure illegal ones just as they did prior to Roe v Wade. Do they just get what they deserve, no matter how desperate they are? Why is it your business to dictate this matter? What gives you the right to say that if some asshole sticks his thing where it has no business being, I have to bear an unwanted child despite the risk to my health. Over 4,000 women in the US died of complications of childbirth in the nineties. Black women were four times more likely to die than white women (that's from a CDC surveillance report.) The vast majority of those were normal pregnancies. Can you really expect me to give up my illegal drugs, eat right, and get good prenatal care? Or do you care that I may not be able to give the baby a healthy start? Do you care that I may be 13 years old and pregnant by my own father, brother, or priest?

I agree that abortion is a bad thing, but in this imperfect world, it is not right to force all women, no matter their circumstances to bear unwanted babies. And lacking omniscience, you are not qualified to judge the circumstances in which it should be allowed.

[Titan]

rlrose328

Yes, I know... the deists that wrote the Constitution did believe in a creator. But I don't and having that in the Constitution violates the church/state separation issue that Thomas Jefferson himself proposed.

Which is why they left God out of the Constitution but you should go read a line in the Jefferson Memorial in Washington...this quote in particular: "God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?"

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the "compelling" point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that, until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health. Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like.

There is no definition of life here. Only that the mortality rate is lower during a first trimester abortion than during normal childbirth, and that is just a "maybe."

At the risk of being snide... of COURSE you do. I'd expect nothing less. Those with avid pro-life stances choose to ignore any measurements but the ones they set themselves; most often, it's the "at conception" timeframe.

What is your measurement? Brainwaves? Why? How do you account for coma patients? Do people lose value as they lose mental capacity? You need to be consistent with the definition of life here.

Please refrain from using my words against me by exagerating a statement. Of course I wouldn't kill someone who has made it clear they wish to be kept alive. What an utterly stupid thing to say. I'm talking about a being who, until that 6 weeks, is merely a group of cells that is feeding off of the host (mother). (For the record, I support euthanasia as well.)

Please don't insult the statement, just show how it is wrong...which you didn't do. I extended your definition to the logical end point which you haven't adequately fought against. The person in the coma is just a group of cells (a larger group of cells) feeding off the well-being of society and/or the family member in particular. Why can't you deny their will to live for the benefit of everybody else as a whole?

Jolly Sapper

This leads dangerously close to justifing the slaughter of less intelligent people. <-- I smell a straw man argument -JS Someone's right to choose should never trump another HUMAN BEINGS (again, you have to define what a human being is) right to life.

But it isn't a human being is it? Its little more than a mass of cells, that can spontaneously abort at any moment.

1. It isn't a straw man argument because I'm not trying to represent your belief. I'm trying to say that the logical outwork appears to come close to justifying some pretty heinous stuff.
2. Human being: Fully set of chromosomes, begins at conception. Simple as that.
3. Human beings are little more than a mass of cells that can spontaneously die at any point...

Your description was that the "author" of life gets to choose what happens to that life, maybe I misunderstood, but technically any non-virgin birth that I'm involved in would make me an author no? If God has the power or intention to stop an abortion, then they wouldn't happen correct? If an abortion is allowed, then how am I to know if it happened against or because of God's will?

Incorrect, because you don't assign value to life. You propogate life, you keep life going but you don't design life and give it meaning. That is why you can't take life (from a Christian perspecitve). People murdering innocent people is always against God's will. But he still works and makes good things come out of the evil people do, this is the concept of "complex good."

Common decency mostly, unless self defense or some other situation where ending somebody's misery might be their wish (free will, right?).

Common decency? What does that mean and what is your basis for it?

I think this may be another straw man argument. A "safe effective murder" depends on the ability of somebody being able to quickly kill another without their permission, and get away without being harmed in the process, not to mention that the whole point (as I understand it) is that a murder is illegal. If a murder wasn't illegal, then it wouldn't be a murder right?

It isn't a straw man argument, I'm not setting up my own version of your definition, I'm working within your logic. I'm not saying "You believe this" I'm saying "You said what you believe...therefore this should be your opinion on this subject...given the same logic process." So if abortion was illegal it would be wrong? Furthermore, some hitmen are pretty talented and with a long ranged, high power rifle you can pretty much ensure that you get away clean. So again, how does your argument avoid this conclusion?

[rlrose328]

Please don't insult the statement, just show how it is wrong...which you didn't do. I extended your definition to the logical end point which you haven't adequately fought against. The person in the coma is just a group of cells (a larger group of cells) feeding off the well-being of society and/or the family member in particular. Why can't you deny their will to live for the benefit of everybody else as a whole?

I don't consider an embryo a person who deserves life at the expense of the mother's wishes/needs.  There is no need to extend any definition past the specific instance I defined.  

If you can't see the difference... are incapable of seeing the difference... then I have nothing more to say.  

I'm done on this topic.  I will not be re-interpreted and forced to defend my views here any more.  You know where I stand.

[Titan]

Please don't insult the statement, just show how it is wrong...which you didn't do. I extended your definition to the logical end point which you haven't adequately fought against. The person in the coma is just a group of cells (a larger group of cells) feeding off the well-being of society and/or the family member in particular. Why can't you deny their will to live for the benefit of everybody else as a whole?

I don't consider an embryo a person who deserves life at the expense of the mother's wishes/needs.  There is no need to extend any definition past the specific instance I defined.  

If you can't see the difference... are incapable of seeing the difference... then I have nothing more to say.  

I'm done on this topic.  I will not be re-interpreted and forced to defend my views here any more.  You know where I stand.

Essentially what you are saying is that your definition is not worth applying elsewhere. You have defined life only for this specific case which isn't a rational method of creating order.

[Sophus]

Have to say, Titan, your arguments are really beginning to fail to connect with what the opponent is even saying. What could be used as a defense for rlrose is already in his previous statement. This is why we tend to go in circles so often. In all honesty of trying to help you, pay closer attention to what is being said.

[rlrose328]

Have to say, Titan, your arguments are really beginning to fail to connect with what the opponent is even saying. What could be used as a defense for rlrose is already in his previous statement. This is why we tend to go in circles so often. In all honesty of trying to help you, pay closer attention to what is being said.

Ahem... HER, Soph... I'm a HER.