Anti-abortion question

Oh, absolutely. I’ve been on the other side of the fence on this issue in the past, and I’m always ready to be swayed by a good argument.

To clarify, I did say it’s like part of the rape is continuing, meaning the pregnancy is not a “side effect” of the rape, but part of it. This does not imply, however, that the following nine months is anything like the brutality of the rape itself. This is not nine months of torture, and for those who say it is, I presented the examples you took exception with:

Well, I wasn’t trying to make an analogy; I was just saying that nine months of pregnancy, even as the result of rape, pales when compared to the experience of survivors of the Bosnian war, for example. Considering what people have survived throughout history, ending a pregnancy that resulted from a rape seems extremely selfish, at the least, in comparison.

The only concession possible is between the victim and the perpetrator. The fetus does not play a role in any concession. If you mean to ask what does she deserve from society, well, nothing. Everyone deserves a life, but not necessarily a good life. That’s not a given; that’s a bonus. Reminds me of the Buddhists (again) and their expression, “life is suffering,” meaning a difficult, crappy life is normal, and every nice or even neutral thing that happens should be appreciated.

It is your own responsibility to have a good life, but clearly that can’t extend to interfering with someone else’s life. Otherwise, how could we say rape is bad? Someone is getting something out of it. (Let me apologize right here to rape victims for the insensitivity of that statement; I am purposefully trying to leave my emotions out of this discussion.)

Our role is to do what we would do if the rape victim had not become pregnant: console, comfort, and support her. Only in this situation, we do it for nine months.

It can’t? Like I said, she could be dead. Tell me that if you were pregnant with your rapist’s baby, you would gladly trade your situation for a life in Bosnia, Ethiopia, or the Jewish Ghetto in WWII. Oh, yeah, it could definitely be worse. A lot worse.

But, okay, I don’t have the right to tell a woman to deal with it. I do have a responsibility to save an endangered human life, though. I don’t see a conflict there, since that’s the woman’s responsibility too. I’m just reminding her of it. Society can not function if we act like children instead of adults. Children want their rights. Adults handle their responsibilities first.

I appreciate your struggle.

I think you may be confusing (on purpose?) “life” and “quality of life.” I say we must respect human life; if we don’t then, really, what does it matter who kills whom?

You say we must respect the quality of life of a woman who has become pregnant against her wishes. I agree to an extent, but as I indicated above, not to the extent that we should trade a human being’s life to maintain merely the quality of that woman’s.

You also categorize humans as born and unborn, suggesting that the former is a superior class to the latter. Why is this classification important? What is it based on? How do you evaluate one as superior? Are you simply assuming as obvious that your class is superior to any other class?

Since many people here are interested in just the facts, ma’am, here goes:

On April 10, 1982, I was raped.

For two months afterward, I didn’t have a period. I was sure that I was pregnant, but afraid to take a pregnancy test. I was a college student who earned about $100 a week from a part-time job. Abortion was out of the question because I couldn’t afford it.

I was soooo relieved when my period returned. I know that if I was pregnant, I probably would have committed suicide if someone tried to force me to have my attacker’s child.

Did I report this crime to the police? No. This was a case of date rape, but said term didn’t exist at the time. People back then didn’t consider rape by an acquaintance to be a “real” rape. I kept my mouth shut and didn’t discuss the incident with anyone for about 3 years. In the meantime, I stopped dating, because I was so afraid of getting raped again. On March 2, 1985 , a man broke into my L.A. apartment, pointed a gun at me and told me not to scream. My first thought was, oh sh*t, I’m gonna get raped again…so naturally I screamed my head off. Fortunately, this scared the gunman ran away. This time, I reported the incident to the police.

At this point in my life, I had finished college and had a full-time job. A few weeks after the break-in, I began rape therapy, which cost me several thousand dollars over a 6-year period. It has helped quite a bit, but the memory of this incident will NEVER go away. I STILL have horrible nightmares about it.

People who claim to be “pro-life” (a misnomer, considering how many of them murder or support the murder of abortion providing doctors and their staff) usually don’t give a damn about what the pregnant rape victim goes through; they’re so caught up in fetus-worship that they’re blinded to the fact that the woman carrying said fetus is much more than just an incubator. When you are raped, you are literally ripped open. Forcing a woman to bear the child of her attacker means she will be ripped open again; it’s like being raped twice. Being raped once is bad enough, I can attest to that.

Being vehemently pro-choice, I have attended a few pro-choice rallies over the past two decades, which were always accompanied by counter-protests by rabid anti-choicers. These people are without question the most hate-filled, violent people I have ever encountered. I once saw a so-called “pro-lifer” kick a woman in the stomach simply because she was holding a sign that read “Keep Abortion Legal.” I also saw a woman get hit in the head and knocked unconscious with an unopened soda can thrown by a man who screamed, “Burn in Hell, baby killers!” I believe that a more accurate term for these people is “pro forced childbirth,” since they don’t care about women’s lives; they simply don’t want women to have control over their own bodies.

As for the Xian argument against abortion, I had the Buy Bull shoved down my throat from birth until age 18, and can state with certainty that abortion is NEVER mentioned in said book. Anti-choicers frequently refer to a passage in Exodus which mentions a miscarriage caused by men fighting, but it is NOT a description of an abortion (I also note that there are several passages in Exodus that condone slavery. Perhaps we should bring that back as well, in order to pacify the religious nuts. And did I also mention that passage in Proverbs where it says you should beat a child with a rod? Let’s make child abuse legal as well.). If their god is so “pro-life,” then why did it slaughter babies (as mentioned in Hosea)? Why did said god sanction incest (Lot and his daughters)? As far as I’m concerned, the Buy Bull is nothing more than a book of fairy tales, not facts.

Here are some more facts:

There are currently about half a million children in the foster care system in the U.S. There are over 70,000 children waiting to be adopted. Yet there are thousands of would-be parents on adoption waiting lists? Why? It seems that most of these couples want white or light-skinned babies, not older, darker-skinned minority children (nor disabled children, crack babies, etc.).

Another fact: there are over 1 million abortions performed in the U.S. each year. Suppose that all pregnant women in this country were forced to have unwanted children. There aren’t enough people to provide homes for these children; they would probably end up as wards of the state, which of course costs money, which would probably mean higher taxes for all.

Those who think it’s okay to force women to have children against their will should in turn be forced to do something against THEIR will - adopt these unwanted children, or pay for their upbringing. In addition, they should also be forced to pay for therapy for rape victims who are forced to have their attackers’ kids.

If women are once again denied the right to abortion (another fact: many people don’t know that abortion was legal until “quickening” in many U.S. states for most of the 19th century, until the Comstock law was enacted in 1873.), they will most likely resort to having illegal abortions. Upper and middle-class women will always be able to go to other countries for safe abortions; the poor will have to make do with coat hangers, knitting needles, and abortions in abandoned hotels, etc. Many women will have the unwanted babies and toss them in trash dumpsters (and we know for a fact that there’s a lot of that going on already). There will be an increase in the annual birth rate, but it sure won’t be 1 million. There will also be an increase in the death rate from illegal abortions.

As for the argument that a woman may be aborting a future scientist, etc. (this is the extremely weak “You Killed Beethoven” argument that is beloved by anti-choicers everywhere), my response is, what if Klara Poezl had had an abortion? Hitler never would have been born. Same goes for Stalin’s mon, Charles Manson’s mommy, etc. Should women feel guilty every time they have a period because the unfertilized egg that exits the body COULD HAVE BEEN someone famous??? How utterly ridiculous.

And lastly, I wonder:
Why are so many of those who call themselves “pro-life” staunch supporters of the death penalty???

Another thing you anti-abortion people seem to be forgetting is that after a woman has carried a fetus for nine months, it doesn’t just simply vacate the body and everything is the way it was.

You are proposing that a woman who has suffered through a humiliating, degrading rape be forced to endure month after month of nutrient-sucking, unknowing strangers asking, “Oh when is the little bundle of joy arriving?”, physical appearance-altering, possible long-term illness-causing gestation and the pain/complications/possible permanent scarring experience of giving birth.

People who believe this should be thrown in prison right beside the rapists because they would be just as guilty of violating, degrading and scarring that poor woman.

Just to be fair, evilbeth, only a small percentage of pro-lifers support killing abortion doctors.

I think what many pro-lifers feel about the rape/abortion issue is, though they feel compassion for the rape victim, that the child/fetus/whatever should not be punished for the wrongdoing of a rapist.

I don’t think that anyone questions that the interveneing 9 months (as well as the rest of that child’s life) will be very difficult for the woman. And to give credit to the general populace, I think most people would be supportive of and impressed with the courage of a woman who elected to carry the child of a rape.

I am on the fence on this issue however, and willing to listen to contrasting viewpoints.

When oh when will we stop seeing death as “punishment”? It’s not like life is “good” and death is “bad”. They are neither. They are neutral.

Trixie: I won’t even try to sympathize with you, because I can’t. That is something I won’t have to go through in my life, and can’t possibly begin to imagine what it’s like.

However, your one example doesn’t define the facts in this argument. In fact, I’m sorry to say they taint the facts that you do present. I’ll try to pull them out as unbiased as I can.

I would like to know why someone can’t afford an abortion. Out of ignorance, how much does this cost? I imagine you’re referring to medical expenses and such. Are there organizations that pick this tab up?

I don’t understand your argument how “pro-life” is a misnomer. Do you really think there are millions of pro-lifers out there bombing abortion clinics? Now, the acts of the few unfortunately cloud the perception of the many, but its time to be reasonable, especially when you think THEY are not.

We’ve taken the Bible out of the argument, so your examples don’t need to be refuted (which I wouldn’t do, anyway).

How acurate are your foster children, waiting list stats? They seem about right. But just because there is a “surplus” of children, does that justify abortion?

If I come out of this argument believing that an unborn baby is alive and a person, I would certainly pay more taxes to not kill it. Still, this is an emotional plea.

It seems that your argument assumes that all unwanted pregnancies are the result of rape. You talk about “against their will”. Where is the contraception in these cases?

I think the argument of different social classes having different access to abortion is very legitimate. It addresses an underlying falult of the government and society to provide equal opportunities for all. But, if addressed, shouldn’t things like family planning and contraception be addressed first?

The increase in the birth rate and the death rate from illegal abortions certainly won’t be a negative sum. A pro-life stance would rather have more life than more death, I imagine.

I also think the “You killed so and so” is a terrible argument.

Evilbeth: Ok, good point. But at what point is the “pain/complications/possible permanent scarring experience of giving birth” equal or greater than an abortion?

I think what confuses me is that you are using the same rhetoric as the “pro-lifers” about “repecting the life of a little unborn baby”.

The quality of life of the fetus is dependent on the quality of the woman’s life, who will be forced to nourish it for nine months and then nuture it (or not), or let it go into an already overcrowded adoption system. I would rather see one “life” nipped in the bud, when it is merely at the stage of being “potential”, then see two lives ruined, possibly forever. (Not to mention all the lives that an emotionally alienated, improperly socialized unwanted child can ruin - I’ve seen it)

I am a law-abiding person, and I accept the legal descision that a fetus does not have rights until it is born. However, that topic has already been deemed irrelevant to this discussion, so I won’t bring it up anymore.

Where was that deemed irrelevant?

And since when does “law-abiding” mean that you can’t question authority and demand equal justice - otherwise, women wouldn’t be voting, slaves would fill factories, and US Steel would own the world.

By “law-abiding”, I meant that I respect the authority of the court to make descisions that are in the best interest of everyone in society. That does not mean that I don’t question the justice system; it just means that I do not have a core distrust of it.

By “law-abiding”, I meant that I respect the authority of the court to make descisions that are in the best interest of everyone in society. That does not mean that I don’t question the justice system; it just means that I do not have a core distrust of it.

Once again, quality of life is not the issue. We don’t kill Ethiopians because they have a poor quality of life. Bosnian Muslims of late and German Jews in WWII struggled to stay alive; they didn’t kill themselves. Lots of people live crappy lives; even most victims of rape, like Trixie, struggle on. My sister-in-law was a foster child; I’ll be perfectly honest: she lived a crappy life. She has pain and scars. Her husband, my brother, can not naturally have children due to his violent, crappy life as a youth. My sister-in-law and my brother adopted a little girl whose young mother is a drunk and druggie, has brain damage, and regularly gets pregnant. But my sister-in-law, my brother, and my beautiful niece are happy to be alive despite their crappy lives. So don’t tell me you’re doing a fetus a favour by killing it because it might have a crappy life. It just might have a better life than yours. The fact is you don’t care about the fetus. Let’s talk about the real issue.

Is it okay to kill a human being to minimize your discomfort? Here’s a hard fact: you and a fetus are both humans. Your species isn’t determined by stage of development. Abortion, therefore, is the violent oppression of a minority and discrimination against human beings based on stage of development. It is developmental discrimination. Pro-choice feminists should be ashamed; are all humans equal, or only when it’s convenient?

You don’t understand why this is irrelevant. If you base your concept of right on judicial law, then what you see as right will have to change with the law. If abortion is ever outlawed, then you will not only have to accept this, but believe it is right. How could Roe vs. Wade have ever happened if everyone simply accepted the laws as correct? And if I was on your side, I would tell you it is a mistake to take Roe vs. Wade for granted.

Yes, a fully developed adult and a fetus are both composed of “human” matter. So is a human ovum or a human sperm (or a malignant tumor, for that matter). Should we deem that the “right to life” of an ovum is equivalent to the right to life of an adult? Why not? Given the appropriate circumstances, the ovum would become a zygote and then a fetus and then a baby. (Or is a zygote a baby?) Is using a condom murder?

It is a hard fact that a fetus and an adult are both “human”. It is not so clear if a fetus is a separate human being, endowed with individual rights. It is not clear if the person who carries the fetus is obligated to subjugate her own rights for the rights of the fetus.

As an aside, I completely agree with the “fuzzy logic” presented by St. Attila. The world is not black and white; most everything we encounter is painted in shades of gray. When does a seed become a tree? When does an ovum become a baby?

Avalongod:

I agree. However, consider what happens when the child grows up. If the woman elects to keep the child, how does she explain who his father is? If she gives him up for adoption, (especially given today’s more accessible adoption records) there is an excellent chance that the child will someday seek her out; how does she explain to him that he was conceived only because of a violent crime? Should she lie to him? Maybe she could tell him she doesn’t know who his father is, because she was such a slut.

If I had been compelled to prove that I conceived as a result of a rape, I would not have been allowed to have an abortion. Rape is so difficult to prove, especially date rape. I would have elected to commit suicide (and at the same time, infanticide, if you believe the 6 week old fetus I carried was a baby) if abortion had been unavailable.

Good thing you didn’t commit suicide, Holly. That’s illegal in some states.

An adult and a fetus are not just “human matter;” they are human, according to the definition of species. Their development, their “being,” depends on their human DNA. Human sperm and unfertilized ova contain only half the DNA required to be human, so they are not human by definition.

Let me say right here that, as one human is equal to any other, there should be no prohibition against protecting yourself with deadly force if your life is clearly threatened by another human. This applies to women whose pregnancies endanger their lives (NOT the quality of their lives, mind you). This would also apply to cancer cells.

No one is a separate human being. Independence (with respect to life) is another fuzzy concept; dependency on another human for life does not switch off at some point in fetal development. A newborn infant is certainly not independent; it relies entirely on another human being for its life. A toddler, while less dependent than a newborn, is not entirely independent either. In fact, you and I are dependent on other people in our lives. We depend on food manufacturers, the government, our employers, doctors, our families, and so on. If you (assuming you’re not an experienced outdoors-person) were dropped in the middle of a forest by yourself, with no manufactured implements, you’d likely be dead in a week.

Considering everyone is dependent on someone, ending the life of your dependent fetus is the same as ending the life of your dependent toddler. That you can transfer a toddler’s dependence to another human but not (yet) a young fetus’ is irrelevant; if somehow no one wants to take responsibility for your toddler, you still do not have the right to kill it.

Yep. That’s the real question, and one that is generally not discussed. My understanding is that the “Roe v. Wade” argument (the pro-abortion one) was principally (but not solely) a privacy one–i.e., the woman’s right to guide her own destiny as she sees fit and without outside interference (a real but not absolute right) takes precedence over the fetus’s right to live. This was primarily a Ninth amendment argument.

A “friend of the court” brief filed went so far as to state “that even if a fetus were found to be a legal person, a person could not be compelled to nurture it in her body against her will.”

Pro-abortion arguments, I think, need to conclude one of two things:

  1. All of us former-fetuses were, at one point, something that was not essentially human; therefore, human rights need not be afforded a fetus. This is unprovable, I think, and in the absence of proof a wrong-minded conclusion. No human fetus ever turns into an ostrich or a toaster. In the absence of real evidence, mustn’t we assume this entity is human? Why wouldn’t we?

  2. Even if the fetus is human, his rights are subjugated by the woman’s right to privacy. This also seems illogical (i.e., the conclusion ought to be the reverse). If there is such a thing as an absolute right, it’s the right of an innocent not to be killed.

St. Attila:

By this definition, a human corpse is also human; shouldn’t corpses be afforded the same rights as other humans? Also, by this definition, many people that I consider to be human would not be. For example, my friend had a baby with Trisomy 18 (an extra 18th chromosome). Such a defect isn’t compatible with other human DNA, nor with life; she died when she was 10 days old. Should I inform my friend that she can stop grieving, because the baby wasn’t human anyway? The same could be said for anyone with Down’s Syndrome.

As the law currently stands, a brain dead person is legally dead. According to your definition, a brain dead person is a living human with all the rights of any other.

What if the pregnancy doesn’t endanger your life, but will lead to a crippling medical condition? Example: I know a woman who chose to continue her pregnancy, despite the doctor’s warning that it would permanently screw up her pelvis (she’d been in a car accident and mangled herself). Since the baby was born, she has been in a wheelchair.

What if the doctor can’t say for certain whether or not carrying the fetus to term will kill the mother? At what point is it considered endangering her life: when she has a fifty percent chance of dying? Sixty?

Also, what if the cancer cells are benign and not life-threatening? I know a woman who has a 6 pound fatty tumor on her neck. It looks like she has a second head; it’s truly hideous, but it doesn’t endanger her in any way. Should she be prevented from having it removed?

Minor sidetrack, for those who said the Bible doesn’t mention abortion:

While it is true that the Bible doesn’t explicitly mention abortion, there’s a passage in Exodus 21 I’ve always found interesting. In the NIV, that passage is:

Footnote 5 gives “she has a miscarriage” as an alternate translation for “she gives birth prematurely”; in older Bibles “miscarriage” is the preferred translation.

This passage indicates to me that the life of the unborn, which is worth some cash, is not equal to the life of the mother, which is worth eye-for-eye compensation.

Any response from the Biblically-inclined?

No. Let’s make this simple and say that you have to be alive to have rights. If you are dead, or your brain functions are irretrievable, you have officially passed the point of no return and need not be part of the debate. I’m not trying to establish the definition of “irretrievable” here. Merely stating that there’s a line that is crossed beyond which we can’t expect to return to conscious life. Also, genetic anomolies such as the one you mention do not transform the person into something non-human.

“Isn’t compatible with other DNA” is actually a statement you could make about anyone if your point is that there are always significant differences. Not to speak for anyone else, but I think you’re missing the original point if you’re arguing that these are somehow critical points that were overlooked. If you prefer, you can limit the discussion to forms you (or someone else) consider indisputably human, and see if an abortion argument still holds up.

Is it really your contention that the pro-life camp is the one that holds that “inferior” human forms are of lesser value and need not be afforded the same rights? Is this really a logical flaw you discern in the pro-life argument?

These are the types of problematical questions doctors and families wrestle with every day, related to countless situations. Is your point that if there is no black-and-white universal answer, that means the question is invalid? If you do that is a standard pro-abortion premise, I think–i.e., if we can’t absolute codify the fact that an ethical transgression is or isn’t being made, than it’s pointless to even discuss, so let’s all just do what we want.

Haven’t a clue what point you believe you’re advancing here. Do you really believe the original post was trying to protect the rights of benign tumors? I understand the whole “DNA/human matter” thought you were pursuing, but this seems silly and off point, unless I’m misunderstanding. Perhaps you can clarify.