Abortion

[Ozone]

I'm sure this subject has come up several times in the past, but not since I've been visiting with all of you (which I've found to be fun, as well as a great learning experience).

That said, let's get down and dirty. What's your opinion on abortion? For the record, I'm pro abortion. Not that I like seeing anything killed, but here's how I see it:

For whatever reason, someone is pregnant, and doesn't want the baby. Be it a victim of rape, incest, or just plain old stupidity. If this woman is forced to give birth to this baby, she'll be raising a child she doesn't want. The child will probably be treated with resentment. Not cared for properly, and not taught right from wrong. A child raised like this, IMHO, has a much higher likelihood of becoming a criminal. Just because of his/her upbringing.

Another point is: how many teens get pregnant, can't get an abortion, but can't afford to keep the child. Well, that's where that big beautiful thing called Welfare comes in. Then the rest of us spend our lives working to put food on the table for that baby, as well as the mother, who can't work AND afford a baby-sitter. :rolleyes:

Don't give me the old "put it up for adoption" crap either. Because you know as well as I do that in many cases it doesn't happen, either the mother gets attached, or is just too damn lazy to put it up, or she finds out really quickly that the rest of the country is going to support her, so why give THAT up??

I think all of the unwanted children in the world should be taken to the houses of those who strongly oppose abortion, and those people can take care of them... :)

So c'mon Straight Dopers!! What's your version of the story??

[felicia]

Your argument sounds logical enough.

So what about the pregnant teen who's too lazy to get the abortion (or to give her the benefit of the doubt, is in some kind of deep denial), so she delivers the baby in the bathroom at her prom, and drowns it in the toilet....ahhhh, one less child for us to have to support!

What about the one who gives it all she's got, but motherhood is just too much for her so when the baby hits the "terrible twos" she straps it in the carseat and sends the car into a lake. well, we only had to support that one a few years....

At what point does a life have value? When the baby's body is outside the woman, but the head is still in her birth canal and the doctor pierces it's skull and sucks it's brains out, that is no different than waiting till the baby is delivered and killing it.

OK, so you weren't talking about partial-birth abortion, because it's very difficult to find people willing to defend such an unnecessary and heinous "procedure". So where do YOU draw the line? I have a friend whose baby was delivered at 25 weeks (that's a little more than half-way thru a normal pregnancy) and is doing great now! It is legal in most states to abort a baby at this point. Babies generally have a heartbeat even before the mother KNOWS she's pregnant.

Please don't give me all the "her body, her right" stuff. The most devastated victim of abortion is usually the mother--trust me on this one. Yes, I know there are women who will tell you (especially online where they aren't face to face, sometimes I wonder if they're really women)--that they have no regrets, they've had many abortions and they think it's just great. I can't even imagine where they're coming from because the women I know personally suffer daily from regret, sorrow, grief, guilt, and self-loathing. The only way I've seen them overcome and be able to function in their lives is to accept Christ and accept His forgiveness for all their sins.

You asked....:-)

[Whack-a-Mole]

Not to put the kabosh on this but this is one of those topics that has been flogged repeatedly on this board (gun control is another topic that comes to mind). I have found it interesting that while this board is filled with open-minded, well reasoning people (on the whole) the Abortion debate and Gun Control devolve into polarized camps shouting at each other across the fence rather quickly. These are powerful issues and the same vitriol we find on these issues in the world-at-large creep in here as well.

Do a search in the SDMB on Abortion and read the several hundred posts. You can even reply and bump an old thread up if you see fit or start a new thread if you feel some aspect has been neglected. I imagine you'll find takes from both sides on the questions you posed already out there though.

[kiffa]

Felicia - "sometimes I wonder if they're really women" Your tone leads one to assume that you are not all that forgiving or sympathetic to women who say this [regardless of her reasons for saying so] - not a true Christian reaction.

Abortion - it's legal ergo no debate, or just check out the archives.

[avalongod]

I'll throw my $.02 in as usual:

quote:

~~~~Please don't give me all the "her body, her right" stuff. The most devastated victim of abortion is usually the mother--trust me on this one.

I think the reaction women have to abortion is pretty heterogenous. I had a girlfriend one time who had an abortion (before she met me) one time back years previously and was still tortured by guilt. More recently I had a female friend tell me she'd had 7 abortions, and she said it like she was telling me she's had seven trips to California.


quote:

~~~Please don't give me all the "her body, her right" stuff.

I never bought this either. The debate is over the child's body, not the mother's. In essence the debate (as I understand it) is does the mother have the right to destroy a completely seperate human body which happens to have the misfortune of dwelling within her own.

quote:

~~~Do a search in the SDMB on Abortion and read the several hundred posts. You can even reply and bump an old thread up if you see fit or start a new thread if you feel some aspect has been neglected.

Personally I'd rather just go ahead and start a new one myself. The posts get kinda ponderous after they reach 50 or so replies.

quote:

~~~Abortion - it's legal ergo no debate, or just check out the archives.

I don't see where this logic comes from. IT didn't USED to be legal yet someone debated THAT. Slavery used to be legal, but fortunately someone debated that too. What do you mean there is no debate?


quote:

~~~Felicia - "sometimes I wonder if they're really women" Your tone leads one to assume that you are not all that forgiving or sympathetic to women who say this [regardless of her reasons for saying so] - not a true Christian reaction.

Let me start by saying I am not Christian myself. But I wonder why it is that other folk harp all over Christians like buzzards onto meat anytime they express something that is the least bit critical. I don't think most Christians claim to be perfect in their outlook on life.

[oldscratch]

I must agree that this a debate which is particullary tired. No offense intended towards you at all Ozone.

I did have to comment on this though


What about the one who gives it all she's got, but motherhood is just too much for her so when the baby hits the "terrible twos" she straps it in the carseat and sends the car into a lake. well, we only had to support that one a few years....

Reminds me of a fake ad I heard from the Radio Pirates (a radio humour group) in Madison. It was for the Post-natal abortion clinic. That one cracked me up.

[SPOOFE]

My take...

I have a stronger dislike for abortion than I do for Hanson. I frown upon any girl who goes out, gets knocked up, and a few months later aborts the kid that was created from her own irresponsibility.

HOWEVER... I also realize that people are stupid, and if someone wants to get a baby out of her womb bad enough, she'll find some way to do it. Desperate times call for desperate measures, after all. So while I dislike the notion of abortion (in general), I'm against outlawing it at all.

[avalongod]

quote:

~~~I have a stronger dislike for abortion than I do for Hanson.

Then you have stronger beliefs on the matter than I do, man.

[SarumanRex]

My thoughts on abortion:
Is it wrong to kill a fetus? Yes
Is it wrong to force a pregnant woman to carry a fetus for any amount of time against her will? Yes
Is it wrong to force a pregnant woman to give birth against her will? Yes
Is it wrong to bring an unwanted person into this already overcrowded world? Yes
Is it wrong to "sleep around" having unprotected sex and carelessly become pregnant when you have no intention of becoming a mother? Yes
Therefore, abortion is not a question of right and wrong but one of wrong and wrong. What is the right thing to do when confronted by a choice between wrong and wrong? Avoid the question, avoid any situation where the question might arise. If you can't avoid the issue then you are on your own, I have no advice for you.
Should there be any laws restricting abortion? No, since these laws would force women to carry fetuses and give birth against their will?
Note, not having a law against something is not an endorsement by the gov't, the public, or any member of the public of anything. There is no law against felching (don't ask), yet it isn't endorsed by society? In Roe v. Wade the SC struck down all the laws against abortion as unconstitutional, it did not create any new laws saying it was agood thing.

[SPOOFE]

Saruman, I agree with you. While abortion is a terrible procedure, there shouldn't be a law to prevent it just because some find a stronger wrong in it than others. I don't like the notion of creating laws that we don't need, especially when we know that it's a law that would be readily disobeyed.

And Avalongod... I may have exaggerated, just a tad.

[Typo Negative]

Well put, Saruman.

I don't believe abortion should be used as the primary form of birth control, but I don't think it should be illegal.

Plus I'm a guy. If abortion is outlawed, it's not gonna put ME out. Makes me hesitant to take someone else to task on it.

[pinqy]

My thoughts on abortion:
Is it wrong to kill a fetus? Yes
Is a fetus life that this can properly be considered "killing" and would you still consider it killing at all stages of pregnancy starting at conception?

Is it wrong to force a pregnant woman to carry a fetus for any amount of time against her will? Yes
Setting aside aside rape, sexual intercourse is a voluntary action and it is common knowledge that pregnancy can result even with birth control. So, by her own actions the woman becomes pregnant (even if that was not the intent). So who is "forcing" anything? Nature if anyone.

Is it wrong to force a pregnant woman to give birth against her will? Yes
Again, who is doing the forcing?

Is it wrong to bring an unwanted person into this already overcrowded world? Yes
Why is this "wrong?" Is a person's worth dependent completely on whether or not someone wants them? Some have indeed carried the argument of "being wanted" to the extreme of condoning infanticide.

Is it wrong to "sleep around" having unprotected sex and carelessly become pregnant when you have no intention of becoming a mother? Yes
In fairness, you should also substitute the word "father" for "mother" in the question.

Therefore, abortion is not a question of right and wrong but one of wrong and wrong. What is the right thing to do when confronted by a choice between wrong and wrong?

And here's the crux of the matter. Which wrong is worse? The whole debate boils down to what moral status is assigned to the fetus. The extreme anti-abortion side claims full moral status from conception on. From this assumption, abortion is murder, and thus the life of the fetus is more important than any difficulties the mother must endure. Anagalous to this would be an ill parent or spouse who takes up at least as much time, effort and puts as many constraints on a person as pregnancy. But since the ill person has full moral status, killing them is not considered a better alternative.

From the other extreme, the fetus is given no moral status, and is considered no more than a parasite or tumor. Alternately the fetus, as it is wholy dependent on the mother is considered to have no individual moral status, but its moral status is derived from the mother. From these assumptions, abortions are not wrong at all, and perfectly justified if the mother simply doesn't want the fetus.

Most people's views seem to fit in between and either confer moral status to the fetus at a particular stage of pregnancy or assign it a partial moral status in which the mother's needs may outweigh the fetus' considerations.

Ok, these are not new points. My reason for stating them is that all other arguments become spurious if a common agreement on the moral status of the fetus cannot be reached. I've seen some abortion debates break down to "it is a baby" vs "it's not a baby." Nothing can be accomplished if common definitions can't even be reached and imho arguments are really pointless if both sides are arguing from different assumptions but never address the actual assumptions.

Are there any arguments for legalized abortion where a solution to the proposed need for abortion cannot be met by any other way? I'm referring also to things that could be done, but aren't, such as reform of adoption laws and increased responsibility on the father.

pinqy

[Ozone]

I must agree that this a debate which is particullary tired. No offense intended towards you at all Ozone.


No offense taken I assure you. As I've only been a member here for about a month, I've not seen any of the abortion related threads. Sorry to beat a dead horse, but this thread is already started, so....... :)


What about the one who gives it all she's got, but motherhood is just too much for her so when the baby hits
the "terrible twos" she straps it in the carseat and sends the car into a lake. well, we only had to support that one a few years....


A little different than abortion, don't you think?


So what about the pregnant teen who's too lazy to get the abortion (or to give her the benefit of the doubt, is in
some kind of deep denial), so she delivers the baby in the bathroom at her prom, and drowns it in the toilet....ahhhh, one less child for us to have to support!


Also a little different than abortion.

pinqy makes a good point. How far do we go in determining what "life" is? Is it immoral to use a condom, because those sperm are alive, and though you're not aborting a pregnancy, you're stopping one. Denying a baby a chance to be born, right? Hmmmmm.........

How about Welfare? Has that topic been beat to death too? ;)

[tdn]

From the pinqster:

From the other extreme, the fetus is given no moral status, and is considered no more than a parasite or tumor.

Just to add unnecessary fuel to the fire: Is it immoral to kill cancer cells? How do we know that cancer is not the beginnings of a higher form of life? How arrogant are we to assume that we may freely kill this other form of life to save our own?

And yes, pinqy, we do need to define a common set of terms. But I don't think that you're going to get the whole world to ever agree on what these should be.

[Ike Witt]

For whatever reason, the abortion debate almost always seems to be the pro-life religious and pro-choice heathens. Personally, I fit into the heathens category, but without a doubt, my feelings are mixed on the subject. What gets my goat, is the confrontational tactics used by some pro-lifers. Confrontation has been discussed on the boards recently, with PETA and their new Unhappy Meal program, and of course the campus preachers.

In a small and hopefully futile attempt at being confrontational, some pro-lifers showed why I will never buy into their ideal. I was dropping somebody off at a hotel and there were some pro-life demonstrators in front of the hotel. Why they were there to begin with, I'll never know, but they had all the placards with the pictures of aborted fetuses and such. Then I saw a girl, about 14 or 15 I would guess carrying a sign that said "Planned Parenthoods Contracepts Abort". Excuse me? Contraception does not in any way shape or form equate with abortion.

I can understand that people equate abortion with muder, but to equate contraception with muder is beyond the realm. People have always, and will always have sex for reasons other than procreation. If the pro-lifers really are interested in changing the way people think, then they are going to have to stopped being influenced by religious groups and their agendas. Pills and rubbers or abortion. I know how I would choose there.

[felicia]

I apologize deeply if I sounded unsympathetic or unforgiving...I am completely sympathetic and do offer forgiveness (the posts I'm thinking of would be highly offended at the suggestion that they are in need of ANYONE's forgiveness). I only meant that the forcefulness with which I've heard 'people' online say that it didn't bother them, combined with my face-to-face encounters with devastated women seems incongruous. And of course, we know that people do go online incognito and misrepresent themselves. It's impossible to prove one way or the other.

About it being legal, ergo no debate....would you say the same thing if slavery were still legal? Or if murdering your five-year-old became legal? I believe there is a moral authority higher than the law of our land, namely Almighty God. Please don't think that means I discount our laws, God instructs me to be under the authorities that He has allowed to rule and I will submit to their rule until and unless it directly contradicts God's Will. e.g. I know 100s of devout Christians who are vehemently opposed to abortion, but absolutely equally opposed to those who commit murder in protest of it. In fact, despite the passion of many of these people, I don't know anyone who would so much as throw a stick at an abortionist.

[felicia]

The reason they equate Planned Parenthood's contraception methods with abortion is this: If you believe (as I do) that life begins at conception (i.e. the moment the sperm and egg unite to form a zygote, you have human life-distinct from any other zygote on earth and distinct from any other human on earth: a unique individual), then it follows that any form of "birth control" which causes that life to end is abortion. Rubbers, or condoms, do NOT do this, they PREVENT life from every forming by preventing conception. Now personally, God has called me to a life of trusting HIM for everything, which includes trusting Him to decide the number and timing of my children, after all, I believe He knows everything so why would I think that I know better than He does about this? That aside, most Christians would agree that condoms do not end a life, they simply prevent one from starting. Diaphragms (SP?) are the same thing, or the new "female condom". On the other hand, birth control pills cause the woman to have a period and empty the uterus whether conception has occurred or not (i.e. a very early abortion, so early that the woman doesn't know whether conception occurred or not) There are some that prevent the woman from ovulating, thereby preventing conception.

Sorry, you didn't ask for a reproduction class, but I thought it was important to explain that there is a REASON for people opposing "birth control" vs. contraception.

[tracer]

felicia wrote:

At what point does a life have value? When the baby's body is outside the woman, but the head is still in her birth canal and the doctor pierces it's skull and sucks it's brains out, that is no different than waiting till the baby is delivered and killing it.

OK, so you weren't talking about partial-birth abortion, because it's very difficult to find people willing to defend such an unnecessary and heinous "procedure".


Groooooooan ... not this little piece of disinformation again....

Would it interest you to know that, in the D&E procedure you call a "partial-birth abortion", the baby is already dead by the time its legs are out of the birth canal? The physician only sucks the brains out of the already-dead foetus to deflate the head and let it pass the rest of the way through the birth canal more easily.

[Psycho Pirate]

Groooooooan ... not this little piece of disinformation again....

Would it interest you to know that, in the D&E procedure you call a "partial-birth abortion", the baby is already dead by the time its legs are out of the birth canal? The physician only sucks the brains out of the already-dead foetus to deflate the head and let it pass the rest of the way through the birth canal more easily.

I don't follow this at all. How did the baby die? Your description is different from every article and set of diagrams I have seen.

Care to describe the "procedure" for us a little more clearly?

[Ike Witt]

Groooooooan ... not this little piece of disinformation again....

Would it interest you to know that, in the D&E procedure you call a "partial-birth abortion", the baby is already dead by the time its legs are out of the birth canal? The physician only sucks the brains out of the already-dead foetus to deflate the head and let it pass the rest of the way through the birth canal more easily.

I don't follow this at all. How did the baby die? Your description is different from every article and set of diagrams I have seen.

Care to describe the "procedure" for us a little more clearly?


I love it when the newbies get frisky. What does it matter how the baby dies? Maybe its heart never formed, maybe the mother was in a car accident. Tracer was making the point that the baby is already dead before the brains were removed. IOW, brain removal was not the "cause of death".

[Psycho Pirate]

adam_yax:

I love it when the newbies get frisky.

And I love it when posters who post more often than other posters get full of themselves. Quantity of posts does not equal quality of posts. I'm just as much a member of this board as you are.

What does it matter how the baby dies?

Well, it matters if the baby died because the doctor killed it, for one. I was just confused because tracer said that the baby in the procedure was already dead, implying that all "partial-birth abortions" are performed on mothers whose babies are already dead.

I'm just trying to get some information on the subject from someone who might be more knowledgeable than me? Got a problem with that? If so, take it to the pit.

[Ike Witt]

I was just confused because tracer said that the baby in the procedure was already dead, implying that all "partial-birth abortions" are performed on mothers whose babies are already dead.


Okay, I didn't read the post to imply that the procedure was performed only on mothers whose babies are already dead. I can appreciate you wanting to learn more, I always want to learn more as well. However, asking, "How did the baby die?" is not the same as asking, "are you implying that this procedure performed only on women whose babies are already dead?". I trust that you can see that distinction.

[felicia]

The idea that the baby is already dead and that is why they're doing a partial birth abortion is ridiculous! Now you may have a doctor telling you "the baby WILL NOT LIVE" but this is not the same as dead. Plenty of comatose patient's families have been told the person "would not live", yet they didn't choose to have their loved ones brains sucked out. And some of those people have, in fact, recovered fully so doctors are NOT ALWAYS RIGHT! I know PERSONALLY of women who have been told because of various tests done that their "fetus" would not survive and that they should have this procedure or even a regular abortion, only to deliver a perfectly healthy baby because they refused to undergo this procedure. Once the babies brains were sucked out, I'm quite sure there would have been little way to determine whether the child would have otherwise been healthy. What's more, there is no reason as far as the mother's health, why the baby could not be delivered including the head vaginally and THEN decide whether it could make it or not. The only possible exception might be a hydrocephalic baby, which could be delivered c-section.

The only reason this horror continues is because there is a market for their tissue so that people like Christopher Reeves can hope to walk again. Fetal Brain tissue is the only tissue they've found that can regenerate and so they are quite excited that this may provide a cure for paraplegics. I love Christopher Reeves and I truly hope he will walk again, but I don't think babies should have to die so that he can. Talk to people in the industry and learn the truth. They sell the various parts of these babies for research into all kinds of things, it's big business.

[felicia]

My cousin was told that she would never be able to have children. She has three.

She was told the first pregnancy was a tumor.

She was told the third pregnancy had no heartbeat for over six months and that not having a D&C was risking her very life. That little girl is now 13 years old and my cousin is quite healthy as well....

"Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding." Prov. 3:5

[Unauthorized Cinnamon]

On the other hand, birth control pills cause the woman to have a period and empty the uterus whether conception has occurred or not (i.e. a very early abortion, so early that the woman doesn't know whether conception occurred or not) There are some that prevent the woman from ovulating, thereby preventing conception.

AFAIK, all birth control pills simply prevent ovulation. Now they are providing packs of the same type of pills, to be taken in high doses as emergency contraception, but in general, birth control pills do not cause abortions/prevent implantation.

How did you come to the conclusion that life begins at the meeting of the sperm and egg rather than implantation, differentiation of cells, heartbeat, viability, or birth? There is no information on this in the Bible, to my knowledge, so how do you know what God thinks? I don't mean this to sound sarcastic - I actually am interested in how you got this idea.

Saruman, I loved your post. I couldn't agree more. I took the risk of getting pregnant out of wedlock (a less than 1% risk in my case), and decided that should I have an accident, I would do the most difficult thing: have the baby and put it up for adoption. I think a little personal responsibilty (and EDUCATION) regarding sex is what we really need.

[noggins74]

For whatever reason, someone is pregnant, and doesn't want the baby. Be it a victim of rape, incest, or just plain old stupidity. If this woman is forced to give birth to this baby, she'll be raising a child she doesn't want. The child will probably be treated with resentment. Not cared for properly, and not taught right from wrong. A child raised like this, IMHO, has a much higher likelihood of becoming a criminal. Just because of his/her upbringing. ...


The "what if it's unwanted" and "if it has a bad life, it could turn out to be a criminal" arguments are ridiculous. My mother had me when she was 16 ("dad" was not a good guy & not around for very long), and was advised by doctors to have an abortion. (Aside from her age, she was told that I was going to have severe medical problems.) Well, I'm in my mid-20s, never had any medical problems, and am a college grad with a good job and happy life.

No one has the right to take someone else's life because of something they think *might* happen. I'm thankful everyday that my mom didn't listen to the doctors.

If you don't want to have children, abstain or protect yourself. If protection fails and you still get pregnant, take responsibilty for your actions and at least let the unborn child have a chance at a future. You never know what could happen.

[noggins74]

Then I saw a girl, about 14 or 15 I would guess carrying a sign that said "Planned Parenthoods Contracepts Abort". Excuse me? Contraception does not in any way shape or form equate with abortion.

I can understand that people equate abortion with muder, but to equate contraception with muder is beyond the realm. People have always, and will always have sex for reasons other than procreation. If the pro-lifers really are interested in changing the way people think, then they are going to have to stopped being influenced by religious groups and their agendas. Pills and rubbers or abortion. I know how I would choose there.


That's an unfair generalization. Not all pro-lifers are against contraception. I'm pro-life (and a Christian) and I see nothing wrong with contraception.

[noggins74]

... How did you come to the conclusion that life begins at the meeting of the sperm and egg rather than implantation, differentiation of cells, heartbeat, viability, or birth? There is no information on this in the Bible, to my knowledge, so how do you know what God thinks? I don't mean this to sound sarcastic - I actually am interested in how you got this idea.


Psalm 139:13-16 (New International Version)
"(13)For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. (14)I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. (15)My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, (16)your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be."

I know you were probably specifically asking the person whose post you had quoted, but I thought I'd post this passage just to help answer your question.

[felicia]

I'd like to say that I immediately knew the scripture and verse to quote, but I didn't so I'm thankful that God used you to reply so quickly to this question!

Back to the pill not preventing implantation, I do beg to differ. It depends on which hormones are in the variety you take as to what it actually does. However, if you read the enclosed leaflet, you'll find a LOT of nasty side effects that are possible. Meanwhile, my doctor (not a Christian, btw) informed me that the risk for all forms of female cancer (ovarian, uterine, cervical, and breast) are reduced by having at least 3 children, having the first one by age 25, and by breastfeeding. It seems a woman's body was "designed" to need a break from the menstrual cycle and pregnancy and breastfeeding provide that. God KNOWS what He's doing!

[tracer]

felicia wrote:

The idea that the baby is already dead and that is why they're doing a partial birth abortion is ridiculous!

Okay, okay, lemme clarify:

The Dilation & Evacuation procedure used for the so-called "partial birth abortion" kills the fetus before any part of it is poking out of the birth canal. Thus, by the time the physician is at the point where he sucks the brains out of the fetus, the fetus is already dead. The brains are removed from the fetus's head not to kill it (since it's already dead by then), but to allow its head to pass through the birth canal more easily.

This is what I've picked up from the sparse information I've been able to find about the procedure. If you can provide a link to reputable information showing otherwise, I'd like to see it.

[lindsay]

Definitely pro-abortion. I've had my tubes tied since age 21, and if I still had an accident, would run right to a clinic and get it corrected.

This is one of those matters that is neither right or wrong.

Mistakes happen. Birth control can fail, and there is NO reason to carry through an unwanted pregnancy.

I've heard people say that the woman should be forced to go through with it in order to punish her for having sex without being married. Funny, that doesn't seem to punish the guy.

[tracer]

lindsay wrote:

I've heard people say that the woman should be forced to go through with it in order to punish her for having sex without being married. Funny, that doesn't seem to punish the guy.

That's because a guy who has extramarital sex is a studly he-man, but a woman who has extramarital sex is a skanky ho. I mean, duuh. :)

[lindsay]

Isn't this a personal choice that only the woman can make? Abortions have been done since the 1940s and 1950s, even then an early version of Vacuum Aspiration was available. It was done by what would be considered mid-wifes, and the abortion rate was just about as high then as in the busiest days after Roe v Wade.

No one is going to tell me I am going to have a pregnancy against my will.

At the same time if a woman wants to go through with the pregnancy that is her choice.

[TwistofFate]

ahh, Abortion. One of only a few topics that is guarenteed to spill into other threads, create life-long enemies...

a slight hijack will ensue.....


why is Birth control= abortion? Sperm dont have intellegence. neither do ova.
oh, and by the way, it wasnt until the Papal encyclia "Humanae Vitae" in 1963 (?) that birth control was not allowed. When a group of people got together and decided that they saw contraception as a threat to the growth of the church, particularly in Africa where the "Godless Heathens" lived. of course, now the fruits of that are being bore with the STD rate.

on point,
It is not my place to enforce a pregnancy upon a woman.
If I'm ever in the situation where I do get a woman pregnant, I will stand by her decision. After all, we do have free will.

[GaWd]

A few nits to pick...

Birth control pills do not "Abort" a pregnancy, it stops it from occuring at all(except in the rarest of occasions).
No ovulation=no egg=no baby, not an abortion.

So much for that reproductive system lesson...

A few questions.

1- is a miscarriage the same as an "early abortion"?

2- Ectopic pregnancy, if there has to be a surgery to remove an ectopic zygote, is it abortion?

3-If a woman gets pregnant on or near her period, and the lining schluffs off, is that also abortion?

-Sam

[pinqy]

quotes from Lindsay:

This is one of those matters that is neither right or wrong.

Mistakes happen. Birth control can fail, and there is NO reason to carry through an unwanted pregnancy.

No one is going to tell me I am going to have a pregnancy against my will.

I'll start with the last one. I have never heard anyone opposed to abortion advocating telling or forcing a woman to become pregnant. "Pro-lifers" don't have anything to say until a woman is already pregnant against her will. And then it's a question of the moral standing of the fetus.

Judging from the other 2 quotes I list, it seems you have an unstated premise: a fetus has no moral standing. Since anti-abortion starts with the premise that the fetus has at least partial moral standing, it really is necessary to address the different assumptions from the beginning. You have failed to do this by not even stating your premise, let alone substantiating it. On what basis do you feel that the fetus has no moral standing? When does a fetus gain moral standing, and why that point and not one second earlier? Does your view on lack of moral standing extend to infants and if not, why not? This is not a spurious question, some pro-abortion advocates, Dr. Peter Singer for one, logically extend their arguments in favor of abortion to include infanticide.

So, instead of sounding like a fundie who says "it's wrong because God says it is" by saying "it's not wrong because I say it isn't," please make a real argument.

pinqy

[Ike Witt]

eanwhile, my doctor (not a Christian, btw) informed me that the risk for all forms of female cancer (ovarian, uterine, cervical, and breast) are reduced by having at least 3 children, having the first one by age 25, and by breastfeeding. It seems a woman's body was "designed" to need a break from the menstrual cycle and pregnancy and breastfeeding provide that. God KNOWS what He's doing!


I now have a couple of comments. Does your doctor being Christian or non-Christian affect his medical abilities? Also, can you please explain you God knows what he is doing comment. My sister has 4 children and breastfed them all yet she still developed breast cancer, even though no other women in our family had ever had it. Thankfully we found an excellent Oncologist, I however, will make no claim as to his relgious affiliation.

[pinqy]

... How did you come to the conclusion that life begins at the meeting of the sperm and egg rather than implantation, differentiation of cells, heartbeat, viability, or birth? There is no information on this in the Bible, to my knowledge, so how do you know what God thinks? I don't mean this to sound sarcastic - I actually am interested in how you got this idea.


Psalm 139:13-16 (New International Version)
"(13)For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. (14)I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. (15)My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, (16)your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be."

I know you were probably specifically asking the person whose post you had quoted, but I thought I'd post this passage just to help answer your question.


Noggins and Felicia:
Please explain exactly why atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, Taoists, Hindus, Wiccans, neo-Pagans, etc, should find Biblical arguments against abortion persuasive. And, although the cynic in me doubts it, do you have a purely secular argument against abortion, to include why you consider life to begin at conception? This really is important, since the anti-abortion movement wishes to make abortion illegal for all, a secular argument is necessary for any kind of justification.

pinqy

[noggins74]

Noggins and Felicia:
Please explain exactly why atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, Taoists, Hindus, Wiccans, neo-Pagans, etc, should find Biblical arguments against abortion persuasive. And, although the cynic in me doubts it, do you have a purely secular argument against abortion, to include why you consider life to begin at conception? This really is important, since the anti-abortion movement wishes to make abortion illegal for all, a secular argument is necessary for any kind of justification.

pinqy


pinqy,

I didn't say that those people should find the Biblical argument persuasive. The poster that I was responding to (AerynSun) asked Felicia, "There is no information on this in the Bible, to my knowledge, so how do you know what God thinks?" From Felicia's earlier posts, I assumed that she was a Christian and had somewhat similar views to mine, so I answered AerynSun's question with a Biblical reference.

As for secular views that I have against abortion... In an earlier post, I told about what happened with my mom. Regardless of anyone's religious affiliation, I would say that if you decide to have sex, then you need to take the responsibility that comes with it. I know firsthand that things can be extremely tough for people (especially the women and children) who live with the consequences of unplanned pregnancies. But coming from the perspective of one who was the unplanned child, I don't think anyone has the right to say that it's ok to kill someone because they're unwanted. I know my mom was scared when she was in her situation, and she lived with shame for a long time (she's told me this), but she still took responsibility for her actions and gave me a chance at a future. I'm happy to be alive, and I want all children to have the same chance, no matter what religion (or non-religion) they're from.

Ok, so that leads to your other question about where life begins. From the moment of conception, the process of the baby growing has started. Even at that early stage, the baby has a unique DNA from its parents. It may not be able to live on its own yet, but the fact is that it's still growing. To pick some other point in time during pregnancy to say that life begins makes me ask this question: what is the difference between that moment and the one before? You said kind of the same thing when you asked Lindsay, "When does a fetus gain moral standing, and why that point and not one second earlier?" The unique difference between the moment of conception and any other moment during the course of pregnancy is that before the moment of conception, the baby was not growing. The line has to be drawn somewhere.

noggins

[noggins74]

Lindsay wrote:

... Mistakes happen. Birth control can fail, and there is NO reason to carry through an unwanted pregnancy. ...


Other than that the person you're killing might have wanted to live if given the chance...nope, no reason at all.

I'm sorry, but your reasoning is pure selfishness.

[tracer]

A debate as to whether there is a secular case against abortion (from an atheist website):

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/carrier-roth/

[lindsay]

And your point is?

We all look out for number one. Might not be pleasant to recognize, but that is how it is.

[SarumanRex]

In a previous post I made a series of rhetorical questions and answers to which pinqy made a series of retorts.
Rex: Is it wrong to force a pregnant woman to carry a fetus for any amount of time against her will? Yes

pinqy: Setting aside rape, sexual intercourse is a voluntary action and it is common knowledge that pregnancy can result even with birth control. So, by her own actions the woman becomes pregnant (even if that was not the intent). So who is "forcing" anything? Nature if anyone.

Rex: Is it wrong to force a pregnant woman to give birth against her will? Yes

pinqy: Again, who is doing the forcing?

I should clarify that laws prohibiting abortion force women to carry unwanted fetuses and give birth to unwanted babies when they would have chosen to abort the pregnancy if given a choice.

Rex: Is it wrong to bring an unwanted person into this already overcrowded world? Yes

pinqy: Why is this "wrong?" Is a person's worth dependent completely on whether or not someone wants them? Some have indeed carried the argument of "being wanted" to the extreme of condoning infanticide.

IMHO our world society does not want or need any more people, we've already got 6 billion. If you are a helpless infant and own mother doesn't want you (and I recognize that this situation is subject to change, in either direction) then you are screwed. In case I have left any doubt as to your other comment, infanticide is also wrong. There is no right thing to do once an unwanted life has begun, murder is wrong, abandonment is wrong, and pretending to love somebody just doesn't cut it.

Rex: Therefore, abortion is not a question of right and wrong but one of wrong and wrong. What is the right thing to do when confronted by a choice between wrong and wrong?

pinqy: And here's the crux of the matter. Which wrong is worse? The whole debate boils down to what moral status is assigned to the fetus.
Only God can know which wrong is worse in any given case. I think the debate boils down to which course of action will result in less human suffering and misery in the long run. Only God could answer this question with absolute certainty and only on a case by case basis. Unless God enlightens a woman, she'll have to make up her own mind with the information at her disposal, I have no advice to give her.

On a side note, some staticians are attributing some of this nation's drop in crime to "missing criminals" who were aborted years ago by poor unwed teen mothers. It would seem the effects of an abortion can be long reaching indeed.

[Nilvedman]

The question I have is, at what point does the "fetus" (quotes used because I am using defined terms, not because I'm denying the idea of a "fetus" as a stage of human development) become a "baby"? Is a "fetus" human? And where, exactly, is the cutoff point where a fetus becomes human, and thus gains moral standing? If it were an issue of self-sufficiency, I know some 18-year-olds who wouldn't make the cut... ;)

If you accept the argument that such a point does exist, how can you be sure that a given "fetus" is not, in fact, "human"? And wouldn't you always want to err on the side of not killing a "human" needlessly?

(In case you're wondering, I run this argument back to the point of conception, saying, "But is it human now?" Before that... well, it's just what you believe, right?)

[lindsay]

What possible relevance does quotes from the bible have to do with anything? I can find quotes in that book that justify having your 12 year old kid stoned to death for back talk, killing ones' neighbor for working on the sabbath, and for slavery, on and on.

That book was written ages ago, and was very good at coercing people to fork over their money to the church.

The pope, that desexed old man, and others have no say in what one does with their own body.

Abortions were available long before Roe v Wade, it is a medical procedure and is legal.

I believe people have a right to not be forced to become parents against their will. After all, most of them just wanted to have sex, not a kid.

[divemaster]

A few questions.

1- is a miscarriage the same as an "early abortion"?

2- Ectopic pregnancy, if there has to be a surgery to remove an ectopic zygote, is it abortion?

3-If a woman gets pregnant on or near her period, and the lining schluffs off, is that also abortion?

-Sam


1) A miscarriage would be considered a "spontaneous abortion," as opposed to a surgical or procedural abortion. Miscarraiges are more common than one would think and really have no bearing in the abortion debate (unless you are talking about deliberate acts to effect a miscarriage?)

2) An ectopic pregnancy has no chance for viability. The fetus will not live. I've never seen the abortion debate revolve around an ectopic pregnancy.

As an aside:

From, the March 1998 issue (88:401-05) of The American Journal of Public Health: A 3-year French study involving 1,955 women found a 50% increased risk of ectopic (or tubal) pregnancy among women who have undergone abortion, with an even greater risk among women who have had more than one previous abortion. Other risk factors included smoking, pelvic surgery, use of an IUD, and pelvic inflammatory disease.

3) If it happened before implantation, no. If it occured after implantation, it would be considered a miscarriage (see 1).

[divemaster]

for tracer, who seems to think:The Dilation & Evacuation procedure used for the so-called "partial birth abortion" kills the fetus before any part of it is poking out of the birth canal. Thus, by the time the physician is at the point where he sucks the brains out of the fetus, the fetus is already dead.

Well, in the direct words of one of the pioneers of the procedure, Dr. Martin Haskell, from a 1993 interview with the American Medical News:

AMN: Let's talk first about whether or not the fetus is dead beforehand.

Dr. Haskell: No it's not. No, it's really not. A percentage are for various numbers of reasons. Some just because of the stress-- intrauterine stress during, you know, the two days that the cervix is being dilated [to permit extraction of the fetus]. Sometimes the membranes rupture and it takes a very small superficial infection to kill a fetus in utero when the membranes are broken. And so in my case, I would think probably about a third of those are definitely are dead before I actually start to remove the fetus. And probably the other two-thirds are not. (bolding mine)

In an interview quoted in the Dec. 10, 1989 Dayton News, Dr. Haskell conveyed that the scissors thrust is usually the lethal act: "When I do the instrumentation on the skull... it destroys the brain tissue sufficiently so that even if it (the fetus) falls out at that point, it's definitely not alive," Dr. Haskell said.

This is not unsubstantiated hearsay. On July 11, 1995, AMN submitted the transcript of the tape-recorded interviews with Dr. Haskell to the House Judiciary Committee.

[noggins74]

What possible relevance does quotes from the bible have to do with anything? I can find quotes in that book that justify having your 12 year old kid stoned to death for back talk, killing ones' neighbor for working on the sabbath, and for slavery, on and on.

That book was written ages ago, and was very good at coercing people to fork over their money to the church.


I assume you're referring to the passage I posted from Psalms. Like I said in my reply to Pinqy, I was answering a question that someone else had posted asking about what information there was in the Bible on the subject. I never expected to convert anyone with the passage.

And as far as your claim to those other quotes...I'd like you to post them, and give the context and background information that surrounds them. Christians on this board have been accused of making uninformed statements regarding science. In the same way, I believe that if you're going to make statements like you did about the Bible, you should be informed and be able to support what you have posted. Have you ever actually studied the things you claimed, or did you just hear it somewhere?

[pldennison]

On a side note, some staticians are attributing some of this nation's drop in crime to "missing criminals" who were aborted years ago by poor unwed teen mothers. It would seem the effects of an abortion can be long reaching indeed.

I have only a passing familiarity with this research, having heard some of the debate when it was originall published, but just on the face of it it seems to make a specious claim of causation where there might be only correlation. As astorian once pointed out, who are the folks having the abortions? And who are the folks having the babies?

The women who are from groups most commonly associated with the predictors for violent criminal behavior -- poor, urban, minorities -- are the ones having the most children. According to 1996 figures from the CDC, the women having abortions were predominantly white and unmarried, but only 20% were 19 or younger. And while I can't find any stats regarding socioeconomic status, I would be willing to bet that a significant percentage of abortion patients are middle- to upper-class.

There might eventually be some merit in that research, but right now it appears counterintuitive. It strikes me as akin to arguing that if one has an abortion, one is killing the next Einstein/Beethoven/Hitler/Bundy/whatever.

[Stratocaster]

Please explain exactly why atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, Taoists, Hindus, Wiccans, neo-Pagans, etc, should find Biblical arguments against abortion persuasive. And, although the cynic in me doubts it, do you have a purely secular argument against abortion, to include why you consider life to begin at conception? This really is important, since the anti-abortion movement wishes to make abortion illegal for all, a secular argument is necessary for any kind of justification.

pinqy

This is the syllogism I've constructed (and I don't mean this to be flippant in any way). If someone can disute any point (and all subsequent points rely on the prior ones), I'm very interested in your logic and feedback.

1. At some point after conception (perhaps immediately after) this entity becomes a human entity. All but the most strident pro-choice advocates seem to concede this, although the "point" is hotly contested. The zygote does not become a platypus or a table lamp--it "becomes" a human child.

2. There are all manners of rights that are legitimate ones (for example, the right of a woman to decide her own destiny). But many rights are subjugated to others, given a set of circumstances. If there is such a thing as an absolute right, it is the right of an innocent not to be killed. No other right subjugates this one, none I can think of.

3. Given the the supremacy of the right noted in #2, unless we are certain that human life does not exist (again, very few disagree that at some point human life emerges), we must assume that it does. Put another way (to summarize): if we know that an inexorable progression toward human life is underway, an abortion is justified only if we can demonstrate that life does not exist.

If you buy this syllogism, the principal question to be answered is not "Why do you believe it's human life?"--it's "Why do you believe it's not?" I'll answer the former anyway, just for the heck of it: I don't believe I ever existed in a form that was not essentially human, and I'm not sure why I should abandon that belief.

[tracer]

divemaster wrote:

From, the March 1998 issue (88:401-05) of The American Journal of Public Health: A 3-year French study involving 1,955 women found a 50% increased risk of ectopic (or tubal) pregnancy among women who have undergone abortion, with an even greater risk among women who have had more than one previous abortion. Other risk factors included smoking, pelvic surgery, use of an IUD, and pelvic inflammatory disease.

A "50% increased risk"? In most of these studies, that means a 1.5-to-1 association. If so, it qualifies only as a weak association and probably isn't something you could hang your hat on. How big was the "even greater risk" for multiple-abortion women?


Oh ... and I honestly thought that something was done during the late-term D&E procedure to kill the fetus before it emerged. It seems I was misinformed.

[evilbeth]

Psalm 139:13-16 (New International Version)
"(13)For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb.


I guess, then, that this debating over when life begins (according to the Bible) actually comes down to which definition of "womb" you want to use.

[tracer]

Well, it's official now.

The U.S. Supreme Court just, today, declared laws banning Intact Dilation & Extraction abortions (the so-called "partial birth" abortions) unconstitutional.

Here's the news article: http://dailynews.netscape.com/dailynews/cnnnews.tmpl?story=scotus.partialbirth0628.html
And the text of the judicial decision: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=99-830