outlawing abortion

I didn’t make myself clear, I guess. When I say I’m “pro-choice,” I don’t mean I identify or sympathize with the pro-choice movement. I’m definitely a pro-lifer. When I say I advocate that people be free to make their own decisions, I didn’t mean that I thought abortion should be legal. I simply meant that freedom to choose is a basic human right. Even murderers are (and should be) free to choose what they do with their lives. That doesn’t make their actions legal. Legalization doesn’t make something right or wrong automatically.

I don’t feel like arguing tonight, but rest assured that I do disagree that fetuses have less rights than their mothers.

pepperland: I am on your side in this one. And BTW, you are NOT unattractive!

Listalis: Are you against abortion because your church is?
If so, maybe pepper can relate, she used to belong to that church also.
And you are a guy?
How do YOU know how it feels when you (in my case) were on assitance, used by the guy for sex while he’s been broken up with his girlfriend, when told you were pregannt, he said, “Its not mine”.
Etc.
I could not afford another child, or a sitter to watch my infant son.
I had an abortion, and I am glad it was legal.
My life would’ve been messed up.
Maybe you should try to look at the other persons (in this case) women’;s point of view. put yourself in our place before getin all self-righteous!!

I think you’ve missed the point. Killing the fetus would deprive it of any hope of achieving any of its dreams, hopes and aspirations, at any point in its life – regardless of whether it has any such dreams and desires at present.

Besides, are you seriously suggesting that killing the fetus would be justified, on the grounds that it does not currently have any dreams, hopes or aspirations? What about killing a newborn, then? Newborn babies have no such desires, nor the ability to feel or actualize them. Also, if we adopt pepperlandgirl’s perspective, a newborn can wind up “destroying” a person’s life. If you believe that abortion is justified because (a) the fetus has no desires in life, and (b) it would wind up destroying your life, then by that logic, the killing of newborns would be justified as well.

Does this sound familiar? Remember how I said that Peter Singer and other so-called “ethicists” are advocating infanticide on the basis of pro-choice rationales? This is a prime example of how arguments in favor of abortion are being used to justify infanticide, a specific type of child abuse.

Uh…why would you wait until the a child is a newborn to decide if it will destroy your life? Persumably, a person would think about this before the pregnancy occurred and for the following 9 months. A newborn could destroy your life—but by the time you have a child, you pretty much should be aware of that. My point is that I’m not going to let it get to that point–I’m going to take care of myself before a child is ever brought into this world. I never, ever ever implied it would be OK to hurt a baby, abandon a baby, kill a baby, or abuse a child because everything went down the drain. Your logic is faulty because most (all?) pro-choicers recognize the difference between a fetus and a born child. As a matter of fact, that difference is crucial. A pro-choicer would no more advocate infanticide than someone who is pro-life advocate abortion.

I understand where you are coming from…you think life begins at conception. Ok. However, using this type of rhetoric, accusing pro-choice people of being guilty of or advocating infanticide and child abuse, as well as completely mis-representing positions, accusing people of being immoral, and equating pro-choice to murdering co-workers, is not going to win you any favor or convince me that you are right.

First of all, the argument about children in foster homes, or without parents is absurd. I can guaran-damn-tee you, if you ask any of those children if they would rather have never been born at all or not have parents they would chose the latter. I myself was born without a father. He died several months before my birth. I grew up in a negligent, and sometimes abusive, home. No one would want a child to grow up the way I did. But if someone decided to deny me my life because of that, I would call them a murderer. I was almost aborted. My mother was 16 when she had me. I already had a brother. My father had just died at the age of 18 at work. They lived alone, so my mother would have been a 16 year old with 2 children and no husband. Her sister was pregnant at the same time. My mother asked her to go with her to the clinic. After talking to the counselor, for some reason my aunt decided to have one. My mother changed her mind.

As I am a male, you may say i do not have a justifyable voice in such matters. I tell you that as someone who was born, just like every human on the planet, I have every right to tell you my mother has no right to deny me my life, unless it is detriment to her own.

The argument of when life begins has no room in the abortion debate per SCOTUS who says it ‘need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins’. I find that just a lazy way to totally ignore the whole abortion issue alltogether for political reasons.

According to the only report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) that I could find, nearly half of the women who had an abortion in 1997 had had at least one previous abortion. Nearly one in five of those women had undergone at least two abortions. It is used as a form of birth control, just like the pill or condoms or whatever.

Plannedparenthood.org estimates from 200,000 - 1.2 million abortions were performed each year before abortions where illegal. Because the number of abortions after it was legal was only 700,000 I would think the low side of that guesstimate would be probable. We are having abortions today at the rate of about 1.4 million a year. That is one half of our total death rate in the US annually. And to steal from another topic, It is almost twice as much of all of the combined battle deaths the US has ever lost in all of the wars it has ever faught. And that is every year. Over 36 million abortions since roe v. wade. That is on the scale of Stalin and Mao, but these were done to the epitome of innocense.

So you will have to forgive me if I find the argument that it is possible it may be disasterous to my way of life. I find that the most repugnant of excuses. Life is what you make of it. And if you would let a child destroy your life then it is no ones fault but your own. Billions of people have learned to “live” with children. And I can assure you that pretty much all of them either failed or succeded on thier own merrits. Not because the child was born.

If you think a child would have that effect you do have a choice. Do not get pregnant. Whether you think it or not, you do have a responsibility.

It doesn’t matter if you think of it as a baby, or zygote, or just a bunch of cells. It IS a child. And unless you do something to it, or a freak occurence happens that misscarries, it willl be born. And have the same opportunity you and I have to be selfish and say “it’s all about me”. Or not.

I honestly am empathetic to the horror of neing burdened with something you have no control over. But you do have control like I said. And responsibility. Responsibility to yourself, if you think it would be too traumatic to have a child. And responsibility to the child if you do get pregnant. I know abortions would still happen if they made it illegal again. Some may be justified, and others would be just criminal acts. But that is with every moral law. Some murders would be considered justified too.

The birth control has a 99.5% effective rate when taken correctly. Less than in 100 women will accidently get pregnant while on the pill when taken correctly.

14 in 100 people can become pregnant with perfect condom use.

6 in 100 people will become pregnant with perfect use of spermicide.

“Well,” you may think, “those are nice stats Pepper, but what’s the point?”
The point is, no matter how responsible you are, there is always a chance for pregnancy.
“Well,” says you, “Why not abstain?”
Most people are extremely unwilling, maybe even unable, to abstain from sex…whether they are in long-term committed relationships or not.

You are making blanket generalizations–that most women use abortion as a birth-control. Well, in some cases that may be true, but it’s unfair and inaccurate to say everybody who has an abortion is irresponsible and simply using it as a birth-control.

Perhaps if more young women knew how to properly use contraceptives, abortion would not have to be an option for so many of them. Personally, for the type of women you are referring to–the ones who “use it as birth control”, I think there is a larger social problem than abortion. When 14 million girls between 15-19 have children, and 5 million have abortions, I’d say the problem is with the irresponsibility of the people who are supposed to teach their children safe ways to have sex. Saying “don’t do it” is simply not effective enough–a strict policy of abstinence apparently isn’t working.

Abortion wil be around, and will be seen by some very scared, very desperate women (of all ages) as necessary, whether or not you think it’s wrong. The thing of it is, your opinions doesn’t change the facts. How many children have you adopted? How many foster children do you home? How many teenagers do you mentor in the community? How many of you educate your children on the proper way to use contraceptives? How much are you doing to fix the problem? You truly and honestly believe that millions of innocent lives are being sacrificed because women are too selfish and/or stupid to just grin and bear it (no pun intended), what are you doing about it?

I feel I’m doing my best to avoid abortion. Believe it or not, I don’t want one, and I never, ever want to be faced with that decision again. I would be very surprised if anybody says to themselves, “YAY! I get to have invasive surgery and terminate something that’s a part of me! When can I do it again!”

Feel that way if you wish… but the arguments which you used to justify killing a fetus can be just as easily used to justify killing a newborn, or a co-worker. After all, if the alleged “destruction” of your life is sufficient grounds to take a life, then the fetal nature of this person is merely an incidental detail.

You say that I have misrepresented your position. With all due respect, I think that you have clearly misrepresented mine. Listen closely.

I did not say that pro-choicers in general advocate infanticide or child abuse. What I DID say is that pro-choice arguments can be used, and have been used, to justify infanticide – a specific form of child abuse. Clearly, this means that we should either accept infanticide, or reconsider the validity of those pro-choice arguments.

Well, I messed up the coding on my last post. That’s a shame, because I feel that the following deserves special emphasis.

I did not say that pro-choicers in general advocate infanticide or child abuse. What I DID say is that pro-choice arguments can be used, and have been used, to justify infanticide – a specific form of child abuse. Clearly, this means that we should either accept infanticide, or reconsider the validity of those pro-choice arguments.

Also, please note that I never called pepperlandgirl, or anyone else in this thread, “immoral.” I do believe that abortion is morally wrong, but I have not applied that term to any person here. Quite frankly, I do not think it is right to misrepresent my statements – on several counts – in this manner.

I have been hoping for some time to start a good, discussion thread and I guess this is it.
I wonder, though…back when abortion was illegal, the doctors were in trouble legally, not the women.
Why is that?
Aren’t they the ones who requested it?
Maybe it was because women weren’t considered in control of their own bodies.
Now, maybe they are.
Would they be arrested if it were illegal again?

If only.
If only contraception was 100% effective.
If only women who got pregnant and did not want to be could implant the fetus insdie a woman who did want to be.
Would You protest in the streets if it were illegal?

Come on. There could be any number of reasons. One’s marital status or economic circumstances can change after giving birth, for example. Or perhaps the mother’s priorities in life could change. Or perhaps they discovered that the child was malformed, or would require special medical attention. Or maybe the parents simply hadn’t reckoned with how challenging it can be to take care of a child.

There are any number of reasons why one might decide, after giving birth, that the child would “destroy” his or her life. Would that person be justified in destroying the newborn, so as to preserve his or her own dreams?

For that matter, let us consider other situations. Suppose that your own parents were caught in a near-fatal accident – one that left them crippled mental vegetables. What if you were their only living relative, and the responsibility for their care rested on you? Would you have them killed, since supporting them would “destroy” your “life”? Or would you abandon these people? After all, you did say that your moral structure, you put “Number One” (that is, yourself) first. You also said,

Remember, those are the arguments you used to justify killing a pre-born. The same arguments, if they were valid, would justify killing a newborn or one’s parents, should they prove to be a burden that would (supposedly) “destroy [your] life.”

If a one-day-old zygote (not sure if zygote is the correct term at that point, and my embryology books are still packed) is 100% the equivalent of, say, a one-year-old, or even a 25-year-old…

–then why don’t we see more funerals following miscarriages? I’ve heard of them happening before, mostly for late-term pregnancies, but it would be fairly strange to hear of a funeral following a six-week miscarriage. We don’t even require a death certificate, for that matter.

–Most pregnancies, you’ll recall, end in a spontaneous abortion before the pregnancy is even known. Why don’t abortion opponents push for increased medical research into these early miscarriages, and how we might prevent them? Granted, most of these are due to chromosomal abnormalities that are incompatible with life, but we are talking about human lives here, and a whole lot of them.

These are just a few of the implications of considering one’s place as a full member of society as beginning at conception. If anything, it illustrates that most of us draw some sort of intuitive distiction between before birth and after birth, or at least before viability and after viability.

Dr. J

Gosh, if I had a nickle for every time I’ve been told on the boards that “No one is claiming that a zygoye/embryo/fetus” is not alive…they’re just debating whether it is a human/person deserving of distinct rights"…

I hope some of the previous posts in this thread … for example:

put that claim to rest once and for all. :wink:

Please! I spent three years fighting an infertility problem. My problem was most likely not conception or even chromosomal abnormalities, but implantation (although its impossible to say for sure). In those three years, I was producing eggs every month - sometimes multiple eggs (we used Clomid for a few cycles and I have a tendency towards multiple ovulation anyway).

I don’t believe life begins at conception, but if I did - I’ve had about 40 babies die. How I wish people who do believe in life begins at conception would put more effort and money into this sort of medical research.

Right. And killing me today would deprive me of my future lottery winnings – regardless of whether I have won or even played the lottery today. So, I reiterate, it isn’t a “loss” in any real sense of the word. I understood your point–I merely disagree with it.

No, I’m not. Quite the opposite. I’m arguing that the fact that an embryo may at some point have dreams, hopes or aspirations is not a sufficient argument for outlawing abortion, any more than the “What if the baby is going to be the next Hitler?” argument is. If we’re going to argue our way down slippery slopes (in re your infanticide comments below) , that is the nadir at which that particular slippery slope – the “dreams and aspirations” one – ends.

Please don’t assume that because someone does not believe in bright, shiny lines, that they don’t believe in arbitrary ones, either. “After the baby exits the womb” is a perfectly fine arbitrary line to draw, as is “when recognizable, measurable brain activity begins.”

If you aren’t going to ask me my opinions on the topic, please do me the courtesy of not assuming I agree with the most extreme implications of legal abortion. I, in turn, will return the favor.

Conception seems rather arbitrary as a time to define personhood. Why is a fertilized egg a person, and an unfertilized one not? Also, think of fertility clinics. Hundreds (well, dozens, at least. I have no cite handy) of fertilized eggs are being kept in cryogenic storage. Without representation. They didn’t even get a phone call!

From your quote it states that 5 in one hundred may get pregnant within the first year. And less than one in 100 will get pregnant with perfect use of the pill.

You can add condoms and spermicide and uid’s and all the other well known form of birth control to reduce that risk to almost be minute beyond risk. And if it would be totally traumatic you can even get yourself steralized perminantly.

There are unwilling acts of sex, that is evident. That is why they had laws in some states that you could only have abortion in case of the womans life being in danger, or rape and incest. I do not agree with that, but I find my moral objections a bit harder to argue when the responsibility of the woman was not a factor. That does not make me agree with an abortion for those cases either. But blanket abortions “just because you feel like it” are beyond criminal IMO.

And I agree 100% that educating about sex and pregnancy should be a much higher priority. And believe me that there are thousands of pro-choice and anti-abortion organizations out there that do that very thing. The problem I see here is that abortion is part of sex education on the pro-choice and government side. And the latter i find unacceptable. But sometimes I feel it is just me that thinks that way.

Saen:

I’ll guaran-damn-tee you that you are wrong.

I am an adoptive mom and very involved in the adoption community. While there are lots and lots of pro-lifers among adoptees - for obvious reasons, there are a lot of angry adoptees who would have rather their birthmother aborted them than rejected them. There take - they wouldn’t have had “life” or “sentience” and would never have experienced the pain that adoption has brought them.

I’m not going to cite, because most of this comes from private listserves in the adoption community and these stories aren’t mine to share (and I’m at work, and late for a meeting, so I’m not going to search up a public web journal), but they are out there.

Well, sure, that’s the answer you get when you ask living children. What happens when you ask zygotes or gametes?

Well I hope you do find the time to find a public journal, because I find your comment highly unlikely and without context. if you are talking about stories of abondoned children who have grown to be adults, I would think the statements irrational and false. they could have killed themselves if that one time rejection had been sufficient enough to make their life without merit enough to not exhist. And if you are quoting children, who in a time of petulant anger made some remark, well lets just say uneducated is the least adjective I could ascribe to your statement.

What is your point exactly? That because the possibility they will grow up unhappy and not have parents that others have, you are assuming they would choose not to be born? Or are you saying that because we cannot ask them then it is ok to dissregard any opinion they do have or may in the future? What about the coma patients who have no known future? We cannot ask them, so it is legally ok to deny them any future they might have? Hell, it is very possible many may suffer permenant brain damage. All the more reason eh? pfft.