FREEDOM OF CHOICE, ABORTION

Great Debates
1

The law should allow you to do what you want with your own body.
If a guy lights a bowl of marijuana in his own house I could care less.
If a woman wants to sell here body, I could care less.
If a woman wants to get an abortion, I could care less.
The law should allow you to make these decisions.
The law allows people to drink and smoke as much as they want to in their own home, why are drugs any different?
Alcohol and Cigarrattes are drugs! They alter your mind from it’s normal function, they are drugs.
Why can’t the government trust me with my own body?

But, let me focus on abortion for this thread.
Why do religous fanatics find it to be their duty to torment and physically stop women to getting to abortion clinics? Apparently they have suffered much and put MUCH thought to finally reach this decision and they are veyr distraught. Why do religous fanatics yell at them about how they are going to hell and shove pictures of abortioned children in thier face? They want to think of the children first, but what kind of respect do they give the dead child when he/she is on some ones picket sign? Do they stop and consider that the child might be detrimental to the woman’s health and it is necessary for her to abort the pregnancy in order for her to survive? Not everyone follows their religion and thier beliefs, so why should they be thrust upon people?

Would it be resonable for me to go picket my beliefs in front of a church on sundays and pass out pro-choice pamphlets as schools get out, much as some pass out bibles?
Churches persuade the young in my area to go to “rock shows” at parks and they make sure to advertise the free food and video games and half way through it the throw their beliefs on the kids, I know this from experience. Would it be resonable for me to do the same? Would it be ok for me to bring all the kids in and pass out free condoms and talk about safe sex and pro choice instead of abstinence and pro life?

Let people make their own choices about themselves. It’s their bussiness and no one has the right to intrude on that.

2

Because some people are idiots.

The right-wingers get it into their head that killing an unborn baby is murder. They seem to not understand the important fact: UNBORN BABIES ARE NOT SENTIENT. To kill a non-sentient creature is like killing a tree(Actually, it is), a practice those whacky republicans are fond of doing in great numbers.

3

No, that’s not true. It’s likely that there’s a period during pregnancy where sentience does not exist, and there is certainly a period when all the “equipment” required for sentience is present and the baby reacts in a manner that is consistent with a consciousness of its surroundings. The line where this change occurs is not a crystal-clear one.

If sentience, by itself, is your standard to mark the boundary of “personhood,” you’ve drawn it at the wrong point: not being born yet does not form an equation with non-sentience. And, of course, this completely begs the question as to why sentience is the sole determinant of becoming human (though many share this sentiment). This particular issue has been examined in several threads if you care to browse.

And if you’re seriously wondering how some people support a pro-life position (as opposed to just bitching about all those awful right-wing guys who are in league against you), there are several posters who you might want to focus on. For logical, considered pro-life stances in general, beagledave and JubilationTCornpone spring to mind immediately.

4

Jeepers creepers, what’s that you say? The law should allow you to do what you want with your own body?

Wow Mercutio, I’d never heard about that. Some folks oppose abortion? Why, you don’t say. Well, it’s nice to have you as an addition to this board to keep us all “up to date” with these goings-on. I’d never have suspected that abortion was even an issue! And yer pal lenin, too. Keep fighting the good fight in the war against ignorance!

:rolleyes:

5

I’m actually going to formulate a serious reply, laughable though the OP (and the OP’s addendum provided by lenin) may be.

Because they believe you’ll burn in hell, or some such, by doing so. Who are you to tell them what they can and cannot believe?

Because that is the belief of their religion. Their faith calls for them to “save” people, and so they do so. Some go to great extremes to do so, yes.

I’ve never heard of a widely-held belief that a woman should be forced to have a child, even if her safety is at stake. You speak from ignorance, my friend.

They shouldn’t “thrust” their faith on people. But thankfully, very few “religious fanatics” do. It’s just that select few that gives everyone else a bad name.

Nope. Would it be reasonable to demonize an entire group that disagrees with you? Nope. I guess you’re already an unreasonable person, so you might as well start picketing.

All churches? Funny. I went to church for 18 years when I was younger, and this has never happened to me. Maybe your “personal experience” isn’t universal to all human beings?

Don’t you mean, “Let people make their own choices about themselves as long as they agree with me”? It seems like you’re condemning people for their religious belief to me.

We do? I must not be a “right-winger”, then.

And yet, many liberal stances hold that killing trees in great numbers is horrible… so why aren’t they opposed to abortion, if it’s the same thing?

Or maybe your logic is just skewed.

6

SPOOFE, are you implying that people have to be logical or consistent in their political beliefs?! What planet you from, baby?! :smiley:

Sua

7

As Bob and Spoofe have already dealt with the typo infested OP, I’ll just concern myself with Lenin’s follow up to it.

Lenin, you said

This is not true. From the moment of conception, all genetic information is present and all the physical characteristics for life are contained in that newly developed code. No new genetic information is added during the life of that individual. Thus fertilisation marks the spatiotemporal beginning of a new human being. The allotted genetic information which is present from the moment of conception would, obviously, contain the genetic coding for the “equipment” needed for sentience. This equipment develops inside the womb and scientists are not yet certain of the point at which this develops. Whilst we can say with some degree of certainty that a foetus that is only a day old has not yet developed the apparatus needed for sentience, we cannot deny that it is constantly developing within the womb. On this basis, as the embryo develops into a foetus and increasingly acquires the characteristics of a person, so its moral worth and incumbent rights attach. We cannot pinpoint an exact juncture along the developmental course of a foetus where a foetus gains sentience. I am of the opinion that a foetus is constantly gaining sentience, throughout its development. Whilst the actual brain, brain stem and central nervous system may not develop until a specific stage of overall maturation has passed, the foetus is constantly developing * towards * sentience. The statement that “UNBORN BABIES ARE NOT SENTIENT” does strongly suggest that you believe an unborn baby to be no less than a vegetable, right up until the moment of delivery. A baby does not simply sprout a brain stem on contact with the outside world. That appendage and others relating to it are formed within the womb and we should accept the premise that once those appendages are formed a baby can use them, to a small extent, to explore it’s in utero surroundings. When a baby kicks inside a womb, is this a simple reflex action or is it a primitive attempt to explore its habitat? Both options seem to indicate basic sentience (although one indicates it a lot more than the other) and as such it follows that the machinery which would allow a baby to perform this action would be in place even earlier.

Also

Well in that case, next time I go to the hospital I think I’ll strangle a couple of coma patients, after all, I’ve always liked gardening :rolleyes:
Perhaps your sentence should read “To kill a creature which is certainly sentient to a degree before birth and becomes sentient at some point within the womb (but I don’t know when) is like killing a tree (which could also be sentient for all I know)” That would make a little more sense.

8

Implicit in such formulations as

is the notion that they all do it for the same reason. As a rather emphatically partisan on the abortion-rights side of the debate, I’ve been guilty of that kind of reductionism myself, but I’m willing to grant that some anti-abortion partisans are motivated primarily by sentimental concern for the embryos killed by abortions, and even more by a dedicated (albeit often blind) obedience to that which they consider religiously mandated moral code.

But having said all that…

A major portion of the energy that goes into anti-abortion efforts comes from the sentiment that[attitude summary]

[attitude summary].

9

AHunter3, gosh you started out strong.

You are (were?) exactly right: there is no single voice or reason for holding a pro-life stance (just as there isn’t for pro-choice). If you want to engage someone in debate, it’s probably best not to assign motives or opinions that you don’t know exist (that’s what we call prejudice).

Then you close by stating that a “major portion” (exactly what does this mean?) of the pro-life group has unstated and unworthy motives for wanting abortion ended–i.e., a willingness to deny a real right in the interest of returning to the “good old days.”

Exactly whose attitude are you summarizing? The same people whom Mercutio reduced to a single, monolithic thought process? If so, didn’t you just chastise him for doing so?

Sorry, but everything you wrote after “but having said all that” is just a different version of what was served up in the OP. Your “open-minded” opening paragraph doesn’t change that.

10

Bob, I don’t have my library with me at the moment or I could and would mention a handful of names. (Randall Terry does persist in memory, however). I do know for certain that these attitudes exist. I do know that people holding them have played leadership roles in the anti-abortion movement and that others with these attitudes have raised or donated large sums of money for it.

I do not know how unfair it would be to say these attitudes play a very large role in maintaining and driving the movement; they may in fact play a minor role. Or, as I suspect, they may just about explain its existence and persistence in our society.

As for me, I am a partisan, and do not claim to be capable of a great deal of objectivity on the issue. I issued my disclaimer and acknowledged that I do tend to be reductionistic about the Other Side and what motivates them and what they believe and so forth. Having done so, I proceeded onward and made my generalizations.

Generalizations are useful and necessary at times.

11

Hi.

My name is friedo, and I am not a religious fanatic.

In fact, I’m not religious at all. I am an atheist.

Unfortunately for me, atheism is not an excuse for moral relativism. I believe in the sacredness of human life.

That said, as Bob pointed out above, science does not yet know (I don’t know if it will ever know) exactly what stage of fetal development constitutes sentience, or personhood, as it were.

I don’t want people to have abortions. I don’t think any reasonable person wants there to be more abortions.

The solution to this problem, IMO, is not to blow up abortion clinics, but to have targeted educational campaigns that will reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

But the same fundies who like to blow up abortion clinics will never allow the utterrance of the phrase “birth control” in public. Kind of a Catch-22, eh?

So, let’s go over what we learned today.

  1. Not all people who find abortion morally unacceptable are religious nutbags.

  2. The fact that you are not a religious nutbag does not mean you must support abortion.

  3. No issue, especially this one, is as clear-cut and black-and-white as Stupid People would like them to be. The only way you can form an opinion that I will respect is if you actually educate yourself about what’s going on.

  4. The sanctity of human life is important.

  5. We need to respect the rights of women, but we must also respect the rights of their unborn children, and we must, through science and open ethical discussion, determine what rights apply to those children, when, and how.

  6. Abortion, whether you think it should be allowed or banned, is never a “good thing.” The necessity to have an abortion should not arise in the first place.

12

Although people do make mistakes.

The thought of an irresponsible teen getting an abortion because she’s too lazy and self-centered to raise a kid* irks me, but that doesn’t mean I want to take away her access to a safe, clean abortion clinic, where she can have the job done RIGHT, rather than having her shove a red-hot coat hanger into her uterus.

(*Note: In no way am I implying that all women who get abortions are “irresponsible” or “lazy”… I’m just giving the worst-case example)

13

Oh, I agree with you there. My point is, you can’t stop people from having abortions by making them illegal. You can stop people from having abortions by getting it through their thick skulls to use controception, or not have sex in the first place.

14

In HS this kid tried to convince me that what God’s Army (you know the one that bombs the clinics) was doing was comparable to what the US was doing at the time when they were bombing Iraq in defense of the Kurds :rolleyes:. Mainly because the US was defending defenseless people against an oppressive dictator, and “God’s” Army was doing the same by protecting unborn, defensless babies. Myself and some other students tried to show him how wrong and stupid his argument was, he didn’t listen. Needless to say, I never had a conversation that required intelligent though with him again.

15

Spoofe, if you would have paid attanetion to my thread, I named certain people wiht certain actions,
I will agree, I should have been difinitive, so here it goes.

You said:
quote:

Why do religous fanatics find it to be their duty to torment and physically stop women to getting to abortion clinics?

Because they believe you’ll burn in hell, or some such, by doing so. Who are you to tell them what they can and cannot believe?
quote:

Why do religous fanatics yell at them about how they are going to hell and shove pictures of abortioned children in thier face?

Because that is the belief of their religion. Their faith calls for them to “save” people, and so they do so. Some go to great extremes to do so, yes.
(End qoute.)
My whole point is, even thoguh they believe something it does not mean they are right. Once again, I am merely saying people should take into consideration that you are making your own choice and whatever you do, will be on your head, wether there is a god or not.
I am not telling people to do this, merely asking them.
As for what I meant but “religous fanatics”, I meant the extreme religous bunch, the ones that picket, block women from getting to clinics and very VERY extreme cases, kill the doctors that perform the abortion.

You perplexed me when you said.
Qoute:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do they stop and consider that the child might be detrimental to the woman’s health and it is necessary for her to abort the pregnancy in order for her to survive?

I’ve never heard of a widely-held belief that a woman should be forced to have a child, even if her safety is at stake. You speak from ignorance, my friend.
(End Qoute.)

Maybe you misread my statement
And finally, when i talked about churches and the rock shows, a few churhces did it, I never said all, nor did I mean to imply all. There have been 3 churches, who have done this in my experiences.
Granted, my experiences are not all universally true, but they are true. 3 different churches, 3 different events all with misleading flyers.

I am the last person that would want to force any view upon anyone. Thats one of the last few sacred things in this country that some people take for granted or spit on, having the right to make your own decisions. I did not write of my experiences to try and sway people to belive all churches were likes that, but to inform them that this has happened to me and to be weary if it were ever to happen around them.
All in all, I am sorry if I offended you, spoofe.

16

I’ve heard this line of reasoning before…and it strikes me as odd. Much of the legislative and executive actions in this country are about “forcing” a view of morality/ethics/behavior on the citizenry.

Don’t want to hire African Americans because you believe they are an inferior race? Too damn bad…you can’t.

Want to drive as fast as you want in the city? Too damn bad, you can’t.

Don’t believe in paying federal (and in some cases, state) income taxes? Too damn bad, you have to pay.

If you wish to argue the particular merits of a particular restriction/law of a government, then fine…However to say that you (or by your vote, a representative) don’t force a moral or political view on people is less than honest.

17

Oh my God, that is hysterical!

My thought, for what it’s worth- there are times that I would rather someone have an abortion than bear and/or raise their child. Don’t get bent. I guess I’m just picturing all those crack babies, neglected and abandoned babies, and dead babies parading across my television screen damn near every evening.

I know someone will give me shit for thinking that killing the baby before birth is somehow better than killing it after birth, but oh well.

I am a relatively conservative woman who believes in the careful use of the death penalty, and is a strong supporter of Roe v. Wade. Go figure.

18

by beagledave

Kind of strange then, it seems that between pro-choice and anti-choice supporters the anti-choice are the ones to “force” a view of “morality/ethics/behavior on the citizenry.” If you’re pro choice I would hardly say that you’re “forcing” your views on anyone. It’s the other way around, anti-choice people say I don’t think abortion is right, and I wouldn’t have one, so neither can you.

19

Although not many people would advocate using abortion strictly as a form of birth-control, I think this point is well taken. Look at the population explosion occuring on our planet. Which is more humane, to have a child die by malnutrition, beating it to death, freeze to death, be adandoned in a dumpster somewhere, or aborted? At the very least, if the fetus is aborted, it’s misery isn’t prolonged.
I can see the tragedy in this…that doesn’t make it less real. It is difficult to assign arbitrary measures to this issue, but isn’t it “better” to end the life of an unborn 1st trimester fetus than let it laguish in misery after it is born. This seems horrifically selfish.

It is also easy to forget whose body, whose spirit, and whose emotions are being played with by anti-choice advocates. It isn’t their body they are trying to impose laws on. Taking the “righteous” veiw of “protecting” the unborn is a fallacy. It matters not a lick if you think the mother is going to Hell or not.

I’m not an elloquent speaker or debater (that should be painfully obvious by now). My point is that people try to make this a black or white issue. Obviously it is not. There are no easy decisions when it comes to this, but blinding yourself to the real issues at hand is not a realistic solution.

20

There ya go. I responded to you the way I did because I found you to be over-generalizing in the OP. Do religious people have the right to dislike, or even actively protest, against abortion? Sure they do. BUT… do they have the right to blow up an abortion clinic? No way.

Excellent. I like you now. You see, there are a lot of religious people in the country. The “religious fanatics” are a very small minority, and they give a bad name to the rest of 'em.

Ignore the nutcases, and you’ll find that them wacky Christians ain’t so damn bad after all.

I know. I guess I was feeling to anal. My apologies.

Just for the sake of curiosity… what churches (denominations, I mean) promoted these “rock shows”? For some reason, I’m picturing something out in the midwest, like Baptist or Methodist or something (just a hunch, not based on anything rational).

Oh, not at all, my good man! You managed to clarify yourself quite nicely. As for me… well… I guess I enjoy playing the devil’s advocate.