If you don’t want a debate, you might be better served in a forum other than Great Debates.
Abortions save lives. Sometimes the nature of a pregnancy or the health of a pregnant woman makes impossible the survival of the woman, the “child” or both. Often times the nature of a woman’s condition of life makes impossible the happiness of the woman, the “child” or both.
By asserting that abortion does nothing more than kill a baby, you seem to be saying that the “baby’s” life is more valuable than that of the woman bearing it. A woman that has reached childbearing age has participated in the workings of society. Most likely, she has made positive contributions. An unborn thing has not. By saving an unborn thing of unknown potential while at the same time possible canceling any future potential of that things mother, you end up with no overall gain for society.
If you hold religious convictions that prevent you from accepting abortion, please, just say so.
Now, hold on just one minute there! While my great-grandfather was, indeed, Jewish, and I’ve got a few lapsed Catholics in my family tree … Oh, you meant something else, didn’t you? All apologies.
When I said that I didn’t want to debate I simply meant that I didn’t want to get into the “What is a baby” debate. That has been done here a thousand times. Of course I wouldn’t post to a great debate thread with the intention of debating nothing
I will not argue with you that occasionally an abortion saves a life. I am not opposed to abortion in life or death decisions for the women involved.
However, you can not say that as a general rule abortions save lives. Most are performed to kill a baby and have nothing to do with the health of the mother. And, women and be harmed or killed from abortions as well. It is rare but does happen. There are certain risks with any procedure.
Maybe I jumped on that statement too quickly. I don’t respond to many abortion threads because I have very strong feeling on the subject and they usually make me sad for days. It is not a religious conviction that makes me feel this way. It is conviction based on some very personal experiences which I have had.
I understand. I think there are very few who do not have a strong emotional response to the issue of abortion rights and practices.
I think the reason the definition of a baby is so hotly debated is because that is really the central issue of any abortion debate. “Babies”, to me, are delightful little critters that I would never allow to come to harm. If it were easy to define all products of pregnancy as such, abortion would be a very simple issue from my point of view. Not all potential babies will ever be such – even if brought to full term and born. Because of this, I am able to value all aspects of a woman’s life and future over those of an uncertainty.
You are a very articulate writer. I doubt that I will ever be able to have a debate of any kind with you with coming out sounding like a idiot.
I am a women and I highly value my life. I did say and do believe that if a women’s life is in danger then abortion should be an option for her. Please do not make it sound like for me to be against abortion on demand makes me against women’s life.
You talked of uncertainties. If a baby is aborted it is most certainly dead.
I am sorry that I have hijacked your thread pkbites. I am going to attempt to make a graceful exit out the back door.
Oh, dear. Please don’t sell yourself short, Zumba. I’m sure you could easily continue to contribute to any thread that strikes a nerve and I encourage you to do so without reluctance. I respect your convictions and hope to see you around more frequently.
Ummm… is that another inflammatory statment? What’s with the ironic quotes around the “privacy” of the womb, but not the car? When do you feel your privacy is more invaded, when I stick my foot in the backseat of your car, or when I stick it halfway up your ass?
I guess what I’m saying is…well, I guess the first thing I’m saying is that’s an inane statment. Privacy, like all rights, is not absolute. And for the govenment to invade the “privacy” of my body takes a greater social justification then invading the privacy of my car.
Also, the social justification has to take into account the burden it is putting on the citizen. And not letting a women have an abortion amounts to a greater burden then not letting them go withouta seatbelt.
That said, I agree that the government should not interfer with people’s private decisions about things that only concern themselves.
That said, even if you could pay for all your health care out of your own pocket, resources still have to be committed to you to keep you alive after you go flying through that windshield. At the very least, there’s a guy who has to scrap your brain up off the highway. So no descision you make concerns ONLY you. Everything is a balance of competeing values.