Left to its own devices, any human body, including yours and mine, will eventually become a corpse. So why don’t corpses have the same rights you and I do?
“It’s my considered opinion you’re all a bunch of sissies!”–Paul’s Grandfather
I’d have to take issue with that, as follows:
If abortion is no more immoral than, say, having a tooth pulled, then of course there’s no connection to speak of. But if it’s the killing of something with some moral value to it (we get all worked up in our society about people who let their pets procreate, then have to give the offspring to the animal shelter for potential euthanasia, after all), then abortion is immoral, whether or not it’s murder, and it’s worth working backwards along the process that leads to abortion to see if we can’t avoid the unwanted pregnancy in the first place.
Birth control is one obvious way to avoid unwanted pregnancies, and it works in the vast majority of instances. Abstinence from genital intercourse is 100% effective in preventing unwanted pregnancies.
If abortion is viewed as perfectly moral, then there’s no reason, other than the inconvenience, not to use it as a primary method of birth control. If abortion is viewed as mildly but not seriously immoral, use of birth control might be viewed as sufficient to minimize the risk of placing oneself in a position of committing that act, since it may be bad, but not all that bad, to have an abortion.
If abortion is viewed as a serious moral wrong, then simply reducing the likelihood of needing an abortion might not be considered sufficient; one might feel the moral necessity of abstinence from genital intercourse in order to avoid the need to commit that wrong.
So the relevance of abstinence to abortion comes back to the morality of abortion, which was what we were debating to begin with. 
Just want to clear something up…
Tracer:
This implies a 66% rate of miscarriage when a woman becomes pregnant. I would like to know where you got that figure because I believe it to be incorrect.
According to the “bible” of expectant parents, What To Expect When Your Expecting I give you the following footnote:
Roughly 10% of diagnosed pregnancies end in clinically apparent miscarriage. Another 20% to 40% of pregnancies end before a pregnancy diagnosis is made; these are the miscarriages that usually go unnoticed.
Although it seems to defy its own statement, (how do you put a percentage on something you do not notice; or do not know has occured?) I believe 66% is way too high, in fact I think that the 40% mark was the assumed limit it could be for an unknown or untraceable figure, therefore being quite high and unusual. Keep in mind there are other factors that could contribute, but not necessarily cause a miscarriage, (weak or incomplete cervix, drug abuse) but those percentages above are presumed to be “natural”.
“Wow! Spider-Man! Are you really friends with the X-men?”
"Not since Cyclops tried to use my viewmaster."
(Marvel Team Up #1)
I agree that 66% seems too high, but I do not think 40% is an extreme upper limit. The 66% failure rate actually is reasonably close to the failure rate for IVF nationwide, at least that is my understanding fron talking to IVF technicians in Florida. However, it is not necessarily justifiable to extend that number ot the general population. Most estimates for spontaneous miscarriage (before and after diagnosis of pregnancy) that I have run across range from 25% - 50%.
The point, really, is not the particular number. The point is that a significant percentage of fertilized ova fail to become human beings even without human intervention. Now, if you believe that God invests each fertilized ova with a soul and if you believe that natural occurences are the will of God, then you cannot escape the logical conclusion that God decrees more abortions every year than all human agents combined.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
Something I’ve been wondering about:
Suppose, for the sake of discussion, that at every conception, a soul is conferred. So say we have a sperm and ovum that meet. They create a soul somehow (not sure how, but I’m leaving that for another discusiion). The resulting cell then splits into two cells, and each cell develop into an indentical twin. How many souls does the resulting pair of twins have? If you kill one, is that murder?
This idea that all of the potential is set at the moment of conception ignores the fact that it is the next nine months, and time afterwards, that determines who someone is. Identical twins aren’t identical.
Tassey
Member posted 01-11-2000 10:56 PM
Well, you seem to insist on taking me seriously when I clearly stated that I wasn’t being serious, but oh well. Here’s some more non-serious stuff for you to get annoyed at:
First of all, I didn’t provide any “line of reasoning”, I just asked a question. And why would killing a Born Again Christian be double murder? One could argue it’s better than killing a non-Christian. After all, by killing the non-Christian, you are denying him a chance to come to know Jesus and be saved. But a BAC is already saved, and therefore is impervious to death (“All who believe in me shall have eternal life”). Killing him will only release him from the suffereing of earthly existence and allow him to spend eternity in the presence of God. Sounds like you’re doing him a favor.
Ooh… Sounds like a future defense to me.
“Honest, your honor. The defendant was doing the victim a favor. I mean, he’s in heaven - don’t you wish you were that lucky?”
Sadly, I don’t doubt that it’s possible that somewhere, 12 people could get together and buy it…
Yer pal,
Satan
First Place
Most Popular Poster of the 20th Century Competition
As overseen by Coldfire
Ryan, I am going to try to accept that you were joking. The problem is that it was highly offensive. You would never (or should never) make a joke about killing Jews or Black people, neither should you make a joke about killing Christians.
It should be noted that “born-again Christians” are currently being killed in other countries just because of their professed faith. Were you aware of that? I personally know of an Iranian couple who were forced to leave their country due to their professed faith in Jesus. They left their jobs, their home, their family as well as their 3 children. They had to leave otherwise they could be jailed or killed.
I love to joke around as much as the next person, probably more so. However, I think that your “silliness” crossed the line. There are plenty of other things to joke about without resorting to jokes about killing people of any race, color or religious persuasion
Well, I’ll be…
My OPINION on the twins/soul idea would be that the soul would also form in to two seperate but very similar souls as well. Just like the physical counterparts.
Heaven…One to beam up!
My opinion on this issue is: Of course women should be allowed to have a choice whether to kill their baby or not; that’s Free Agency 101. I have a God-given ability to choose whether I will kill the man standing in front of me in the grocery check-out line. Should I choose to murder him, however, there are consequences for this choice that I am not free of (I will probably go to jail and possibly have my own life taken from me), and I believe that women who have abortions are also not free of the consequences of their actions. I’m not condemning the women who have abortions, although I do condemn the act of abortion itself. I just believe that there are natural, cause-and-effect results that none of us are free of, should we choose to take someone else’s life.
When does life begin? IMHO, it begins with the zygote. This is only IMHO, however. I acknowledge that I could be wrong.
I’m with you, Snark. The real question is who has more to lose by being wrong? The one who has aborted their child or the one who chose to birth the child, in spite of very difficult circumstances?
If Pro-lifers are wrong, they are guilty of allowing more precious children in the world. If pro-abortionists are wrong…
It has been mentioned that many zygotes fail to survive to birth without human intervention.
If you believe in a God parcelling out souls, is it so hard believe that He will only give souls to zygotes destined for successful birth? Why would He bother with a zygote that will fail to attach to the uterine wall? People talk like He’s some unthinking, logic-less soul-creation machine. He might use some thought, instead of blindly following rules.
Is it so much harder to extrapolate that He will also know which ones are destined for abortion (being God, and all) and therefore not bother with giving a soul to those zygotes as well?
Since the bible does not clearly state when life begins, I feel that the church cannot and should not make statements either way. I think my theory is as valid as any other.
I don’t have the verse on hand(being in the library),but my Bible says a quote from God to “?” “When you were in your mothers womb,I chose you.”
RevTim wrote:
Those are good questions, ones I don’t know the answer to. You may be right. I simply don’t know.
Or why wouldn’t God allow women to make a choice with their own body? After all, He gives us the brains and free will which invented birth control and safe abortions.
Equally an unanswerable question.
Yer pal,
Satan
My friend’s child died at 5 months. No soul? My uncle died 2 days after birth. No soul? We all are going to die anyway, why would God give anyone of us a soul?
Two verses that speak of God knowing you from the womb: Psalm 139:13; Job 31:15
Neobican wrote:
No, it implies a 66% rate of failed attachment. If the fertilized egg misses the uterine wall on its way through, there is no way to tell unless you sift through the menses for a microscopic zygote. Thus, it is never reported as a “miscarriage.” I’d bet that a lot of the couples who say they’re having difficulty “conceiving” have actually had several successful fertilizations but no successful implantations.
From the Discovery Channel. So you know it must be true.
The truth, as always, is more complicated than that.
Develop reversable sterilization, for MEN and WOMEN.
Let’s SOLVE the problem, not play hockey with people’s and fetus’ rights.
Abortion is murder AND a womens right.
How do we resolve this? Debate, politics, etc? Abortions are bad for woman too. Let’s practice harm reduction and push the people who block contraception use out of the debate - they only seek to control women’s bodies.
Pregnancy is preventable. Family planning is possible without abortion.
But until we get the patriarchs out of the debate - those who would block access to contraception, we should assure the women’s right to choose.
Also a new study shows that violent crime has fallen off dramatically (not property crimes of the “have nots”) exactly 18 years after Roe vs. Wade (I can try to find a reference, but regardless of whether you agree with it, if you haven’t seen this in the media, you might want to come out of your cave).
This is not an endorsement of abortion, but contraception.
This rather tired debate can only be solved within the court systems. My prediction is that in the next few years there will be a defining court case that strongly rules that a male should have to suffer no legal responsibility- financial or otherwise- for he has no ability to decision make the ultimate outcome of the fetus…How can he?..A woman’s reproductive system is her own, and this includes the fetus it is nourishing.
If a male has no right to decide the fetus’ fate he should hold no resposibility for it’s care. During this legal debate, it will become obviously clear that the present form of legal arguement supporting a woman right to her own body is entirely flawed.
This flawed concept was created initially to fudge the enormous complexity of the issue and to ease the feminist pressure created at the time. Full examination of the abortion debate will follow a new ruling which clears the males responsibility.