My one and only thread about Abortion

Great Debates
41

by Dignan:

How do you define life? Make no mistake, a fetus is a living organism. After about 4 and a half months, it is possible for a baby to be born and live (with help, obviously). But what qualifies an organism as being alive? A fetus moves, grows, is self-sustaining (eats, sleeps, shits), has a detectable brain wave. Whether you view it as human or not is your own thing, but it is alive. My question to you is:. When does the embryo or fetus or whatever you choose to call it become human? At the point it becomes human is when it should be given full access to its “human” rights, right? Which gives it a right to life, right? When does it earn that right? I, unlike others, feel that it is human from the moment of conception. Its genetic code states that it will be male or female, have brown, blue or green eyes, whether it will have blonde hair or light brown. But it can be nothing other than human.

If the mother doesn’t feel she is in that position, then granted it would be irresponsible of her to keep the baby. However, there is a perfectly viable alternative to abortion that we pro-lifers like to call adoption. And besides, Medicaid is a nice help to low-income expectant mothers. So is WIC. I’m not going to argue the pros and cons of these two programs here, but they are available.

Yes. I have a cousin with spina bifida, hydroencephalitis, edema, asthma, and a whole slew of other problems. However, she is very happy and energetic. She’s 12 years old, which is five more than she was expected to have. Right now she’s big on one of the guys from N’Sync. Does she have difficulties? Yes, without a doubt. Is she suffering? No. She loves life more than most people I know. Having a disability or handicap of some sort or another does not justify abortion. She is no less human than you and I for her disability. Her right to life is absolute.

by Reprise:

I have to agree with Reprise here, Ad. Is what you believe is murder justifiable in one or two cases? Why not three? Or ten?
I do not believe abortion is ever justified. Life of the mother cases are very rare, though they do happen. Case in point: Mercutio’s aunt. In cases like this, it’s a judgement call whether or not to perform the abortion. Again, I do not feel it is justified. But the procedure should be available, without moral judgement of any kind, to those who feel it is in such a case. Rape and incest cases are also very rare, regardless of propaganda stating otherwise. Reason being (if I am correct. Please correct me if I’m wrong) the emotional trauma of such abuse makes the woman’s hormones go all screwy and pretty much eliminate the possibility of getting pregnant. However, it does happen. My question here is: Why does a [fetus/embryo/baby/whatever] conceived of a rape or incestuous act deserve not to live? Does that [fetus/embryo/baby/whatever] have less of a right to life than one conceived of a consensual relationship? If so, why does it have less of a right? Is it less human? I personally don’t believe that it is, so I cannot morally justify aborting it. However, as in life of the mother cases, the option should be available without moral judgement of any kind to those who feel it is justified.

Now to the other part of the question: the legal issue. Do I believe Roe v Wade should be overturned? Absolutely. This is not something that the American federal government has any right to weigh in on. Abortion is strictly a states’-rights issue. The only possible way to make abortion a constitutional question would be in a very loosely interpreted “freedom of expression” issue. If Maryland decides to outlaw abortion-on-demand in Maryland, it is frankly none of the federal government’s business. Girls seeking an abortion-on-demand should then go to Connecticut to get one, if Connecticut decides to leave abortion legal. However, were I serving on a state legislature that was faced with legalizing abortion-on-demand, I would always vote no. In the cases mentioned above (life of the mother, rape, incest), abortion should be left available but only for those cases. I do not agree with those three reasons, but I cannot make the choice for a husband who must decide between his wife and his child.

42

Please correct me if I’m wrong, Ad Noctum, but you seem to believe that Abortion is murder because of strong religious beliefs. If that assumption is true, wouldn’t you be advocating making a medical procedure illegal based your religion? I think that would violate the separation of Church and State.

I don’t know what faith you belong to, it probably doesn’t matter, but I know mine doesn’t require mercy from your God and I will not meekly subjugate myself to beliefs of your faith.

43

Ok . . . so here’s where we’re at:
Ad Noctum is not Nocturne, and seems to be upset about accidental comparisons.

Ad Noctum believes abortion is murder. Period.

Ad Noctum believes that anyone who does not agree that abortion is always murder requires special mercy from God (presumably to avoid burning, although that’s not explicit).

However, Ad Noctum believes murder is justifiable under certain circumstances.
So . . . I guess the next question (which others have already asked) is this:

Ad Noctum, is murder wrong? If so, how can it ever be justified?

44

Actually, I think you are reading those statistics incorrectly. It shows that 46% of abortions have had previous abortions. It says that 26.4 have had ONE previous abortion. However, another 20% have had two or more previous abortions.

I think disagreeing with it simply because it is sponsored by a pro-life organization is a little silly. If you do not agree with their methods in compiling the stats, that is one thing, but if you disagree with it simply because of the source that is silly.

45

I don’t buy that at all. Are you saying that because some small percentage of women can not take the pill (cite please), that making unwanted pregnancies rare can not happen? There are dozens of other types of birth control. Many of them are very inexpensive. I think it is a lot more likely that if you have had 2 or 3 or more abortions, you are not using any of the conventional methods of birth control.

46

Sure, maybe we should try to educate them. Of course, maybe we should also try to educate both pro-lifers and pro-choicers about the truths about abortion instead of both sides trying to fool the American public into agreeing with their side.

47

Well, ok, maybe nobody ever changes their minds. But I’ve already had two myths dispelled in this thread alone.

First: I’ve always considered abortion the only option when the mother’s life is in danger. I thought this one was pretty much a no-brainer, distasteful as it is. And yet, darian00 showed me that no, it’s possible to value the baby’s life over the mother’s without exception. That was something I didn’t know.

Second: I’ve always seen the pro-choice camp say, “No one just decides to have an abortion. Every woman who has an abortion thinks long and hard about what she has to do.” Then, I see Stoid saying

So, while I haven’t changed my mind, and no, I probably never will, I don’t think these discussions are worthless. Worst case scenario, someone starts an abortion thread, and everyone else ignores it, because they’re tired of talking about it.

Quix

48

of course Murder is wrong. killing another human being is always wrong. manslaughter is killing, but a lesser sentance is placed on the violator. During wartime murder is justified.

and to the person that asked what I think of someone where the condom breaks-- I think that the person should not be able to have an abortion because they were taking the risk of having sex, and they should have been educated that condoms DO break, and they do not have a 100% safety rate. as you’ve heard thousands of times before, the only 100% safe sex is masturbation.

49

**

Spur is right in my opinion. The fact that the pill isn’t an option for many women (including me, too high a family history of reproductive cancers for me to even consider it) doesn’t rule out using birth control. There are many methods, some very effective. Call me a cynic, but I find it hard to believe that people have birth-control failure rates high enough to account for a significant precentage of unwanted conceptions.

An article in the Portland Phoniex last year(too old for inclusion their archives, it seems, sorry) outlined 18 methods of ** male ** birth control currently being researched as well. Hopefully some of these methods will become readily availible in the near future.

50

Since it’s clear that Ad’s position on abortion is founded on religion (and, quite honestly, I can think of no other grounds on which to oppose abortion), I’d really like to hear the source of this belief. Or, to rephrase as a question: Ad, what specific religious edict, writing, canon, Dead Sea Scroll, or whatever, led you to believe that “abortion is murder”?

51

I’ll google this myself after I’ve ingested some caffeine, but does anyone (from either side of this debate) know whether statistics are kept which include the stated reason for women seeking TOPs? I realise that stated reason may well be different from the true reason in some cases, but it seems to me all we have to work with, and it may address some of the enormous assumptions being made about the circumstances under which women seek abortions.

52

Dignan you didn’t address my argument at all. I never mentioned self defense.

53

I guess I don’t understand how something can be wrong, always wrong, completely wrong . . . and ever be justified.

Assume that murder is wrong. Is it any less wrong if it’s to save my own life? Nope. In a war? Nope. To save a mother’s life? Nope. To save a rape victim from bearing her attacker’s child? Nope.

Where do you draw the line? Why is murder justified during wartime, or to save your own life?

54

Chew on this, Ad Noctum (and others). I’m reproducing it from a previous thread.

Feedback is welcome.

55

I appreciated it the first time, I appreciate it now. Thanks, Cervaise.

56

Sigh. I did not make any form of claim that those who have had multiple abortions must be made up of those members of the population who cannot rely on oral contraception to assist in their birth control. And it’s laughable to think that just just because I pointed out that oc is not an option for some people, I’m excusing those people from using other birth control. Hello?

THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED. Someone said that OC + condom offers near-perfect conception prevention. I did not challenge that, as to the best of my knowledge that’s true. I noted that some people can’t take OC. For some it’s life-threatening; for others (like women who smoke) it’s ill-advised. I don’t know what proportion of the sexually-active child-bearing-age female population smokes, but I doubt it’s in the single digits, unfortunately.

What that implies, of course, is that people who can’t take OC must rely on other methods, which alone or in combination may be fairly effective, but do not achieve the “There’s no excuse for abortions” level of 0% pregnancy rate the poster suggested.

That is what I said, that is all I said, and while I applaud attempts to enlarge the conversation from that point, I must ask that you don’t attribute bizarre and laughably inaccurate claims to me. I’ve got enough problems as it is; I need no one’s assitance to make me look like an idiot. I do that just fine on other threads.

57

Actually, I know several people who are against abortion where it has nothing to do with religion. Athiest, Pagen, and others. I’m opposed to abortion, and it has nothing to do with my relious beliefs. I think taking an innocent human life is wrong.

58

http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

It’s not the most glamorous webpage in the world, but it exists. For the record, I’m an agnostic who is anti-abortion.

Quix

59

by darian00,

I’m not even going to answer this. Medical professionals aren’t even positive about when life begins.

Please do not put words into my mouth. I run into this problem more than anything in these debates. Quote me, where did I ever say that it was not human? I’ll save you some time, I didn’t.

I agree with you that it is human. I never said it wasn’t, you came up with that idea. I don’t think that it’s “right to life” takes precedent over the mother’s though.

Really? I will say that the potential for life begins at conception. If you think that a fertilized cell is the same as a fetus that is 30-some weeks along, I’m going out on a limb and saying that you are wrong. There is a clear difference between the two.

Don’t fool yourself. If it’s going to be a perfectly healthy white baby, then yes, without a doubt adoption is very likely. However, for minorities, kids that aren’t going to be completely healthy, or have learning disabilities there are not as many options. The “market” for those two types of babies are very different.

Don’t even start to preach to me about this. I’m sorry that your cousin has those conditions. I’m paralyzed too, and when I think about if I would be willing bring someone into this world that I knew would have a disability like that I am really torn. That’s wonderful that your aunt and uncle feel they can handle a disabled child. Once again, it’s not the same for everyone else. If a family doesn’t feel that they would be able to handle all the additional costs and work that a disabled child would require, they shouldn’t be forced to have the baby. There might be a rare case where someone would adopt a baby with severe handicaps, but it is not very likely.

You said it should be availible (you are so kind), but you said it’s not justified? If someone decides not to risk their life by carrying a baby to term, that isn’t justified? I’m really having trouble figuring this one out, feel free to go into further detail.

If by some crazy chance this were to happen, you do realize how prejudiced this would be, right? Hypothetically say it wasn’t legal in California, but was legal in Washington. A poor woman in the ghetto in LA wouldn’t be able to go and get an abortion, but a wealthy woman from Beverly Hills would be able to fly to Washington and get one.

Texas Spur said:

And what would these truths, that you seem to be privy to, be? I’d love to know.

Quixotic, Stoid also said that she was only six or seven weeks along. I believe that brain waves aren’t even detectable before the eighth week.

Weird Al Einstein

You didn’t address mine either. All I was saying is that murder is a legal concept.

60

**Life **begins at the instant of conception. It could even be argued that the egg and sperm are alive. The cells divide…only living cells do that. Non-living cells do not change and grow.

And of course, they are human cells.

Therefore, what really is being argued is, for lack of a better term, * personhood *. Technically, the question is actually, “At what point do living human cells cross over into being a ** person **?”

And I think there are lots of ways that could be answered, but that is, in fact, the question.

Here’s an excellent answer, scientifically (as opposed to morally or politically) speaking: “Personhood” begins at the moment the cells are no longer undifferentiated. That comes very early, so i’t’s not much use politically, but it’s an interesting point, don’t you think? (It has been demonstrated that up to a certain point, the embryonic cells have the potential to become anything at all: brain, heart, foot, teeth. But there comes a point when that is no longer true, all the cells are fixed in what they will be. I think that is a good point of “personhood” - because the undifferentiated cells aren’t that radically different than sperm and egg: they have potential, but they could go in any direction, given time. Just an interesting note.)
stoid