Abortion: A question of choice

I was thinking the other day about how even though in some states abortion is allowed all throughout pregnancy the same states have charged people with two murders who kill a pregnant wife. I think this is sad because we cant recognize that abortion is murder, and just as sad as "blatent" killing

and i voted anti-choice if you wanted to know

Abortion cannot be considered murder. Simply taking a life is not murder. Murder is the unlawful and premeditated killing of another human being with malicious intent.

A) Abortion is not illegal. Even before it was legal it was not illegal on the premise that it was murdering a baby. It was illegal because the government had deemed it an unsafe medical procedure. Even when abortion was illegal the woman could not be tried and prosecuted for having one. The doctor would have their license to practice medicine revoked and would pay a fine.

B) Abortion is not pre-meditated killing. Pre meditated would mean the woman got pregnant on purpose simply to have an abortion.

C) Abortion does not involve malicious intent. A woman does not have an abortion in hopes of harming the fetus. She doesn't jolly at the thought of inflicting pain upon it. She isn't delighted in the fact that she is taking a life. Malice is the intent to commit an unlawful (there's that word again) act without legal jurisdiction or justification. Malice is also the desire to cause pain, injury, and distress to another. Since it has been medically proven a fetus cannot feel emotional or physical pain until the late part of the second trimester, it is impossible to have an abortion for the sake of causing distress and pain to the fetus.

So, there you have it. I dare anyone to argue with the definition of murder. To call abortion murder is about as asinine as me calling my Chrysler a Mercedes Benz. I can have the opinion that it is a Benz all day long...does that make it one? Hardly.

I am politically pro-choice. I don't like abortion and I wish there was no need for it, but I'm realistic. There have been abortions since the very beginning of time and there will be until the end of time. Making it illegal won't make it go away and it won't make women not have them. If anything it will increase the numbers. And you certainly can't punish the woman for having one since there is no legal justification to do so.

msjones21 said:

Abortion cannot be considered murder. Simply taking a life is not murder. Murder is the unlawful and premeditated killing of another human being with malicious intent.

A) Abortion is not illegal. Even before it was legal it was not illegal on the premise that it was murdering a baby. It was illegal because the government had deemed it an unsafe medical procedure. Even when abortion was illegal the woman could not be tried and prosecuted for having one. The doctor would have their license to practice medicine revoked and would pay a fine.

B) Abortion is not pre-meditated killing. Pre meditated would mean the woman got pregnant on purpose simply to have an abortion.

C) Abortion does not involve malicious intent. A woman does not have an abortion in hopes of harming the fetus. She doesn't jolly at the thought of inflicting pain upon it. She isn't delighted in the fact that she is taking a life. Malice is the intent to commit an unlawful (there's that word again) act without legal jurisdiction or justification. Malice is also the desire to cause pain, injury, and distress to another. Since it has been medically proven a fetus cannot feel emotional or physical pain until the late part of the second trimester, it is impossible to have an abortion for the sake of causing distress and pain to the fetus.

So, there you have it. I dare anyone to argue with the definition of murder. To call abortion murder is about as asinine as me calling my Chrysler a Mercedes Benz. I can have the opinion that it is a Benz all day long...does that make it one? Hardly.

I am politically pro-choice. I don't like abortion and I wish there was no need for it, but I'm realistic. There have been abortions since the very beginning of time and there will be until the end of time. Making it illegal won't make it go away and it won't make women not have them. If anything it will increase the numbers. And you certainly can't punish the woman for having one since there is no legal justification to do so.

Click to expand...

You make some very valid points.

A.) Abortion being "not illegal" doesn't mean it isn't wrong and doesn't mean it isn't murder.

B.) That doesn't make any sense. That would be like if I murdered my husband then saying that it isn't pre-meditated because I didn't marry him in order to kill him.

C.) Once again..."unlawful" doesn't mean "right" or "moral". Secondly, the only reason it isn't done with "malicious intent" is because the baby isn't being considered as a life.
You could argue this with all sorts of murders. What about that mother who drowned her children because she thought God wanted her to to save them from the sin of the world or whatever? Her intent was not to hurt them. Right? So that's not murder?

Anti-"choice" and proud.

Tracie said:

A.) Abortion being "not illegal" doesn't mean it isn't wrong and doesn't mean it isn't murder.

Click to expand...

Murder is unlawful killing. The unlawful section of that sentence is an important part of it's definition. Today, abortion is not murder. Unethical killing? Perhaps but not murder.

I'm very much pro-choice. Our society today isn't set up in a way that minimises the need for abortion. Until we change that, I'm not comfortable telling a woman she can't have an abortion. Put social iniatives into place to prevent the need for abortion (that is proper sex. ed., financial help if necessary, remove the stigma attached to adoption, ensure equal opportunities for mothers), and then come talk to me about making it illegal.

Outlawing abortion is a band aid solution. I'd much rather we attack the actual problem.

(I may have already stated some of this in earlier posts, but that's okay... I got some parts from different websites and cut-pasted some of the things, I can't name them however, because this has been on a word document on my computer for a while) ...These words basically voice my beliefs on this issue, and make good points against pro-'choice' rationalizations.


+::+::+::+::+::+::


The cost to society and the economical cost would be much less aborting
the fetuses of many poor/mentally ill/ women.

How incredibly superficial it is to count money over human life.


The fetus isn't a baby. It's just a simple blob of tissue -- not a baby. Abortion is simply terminating a pregnancy, not killing a child.

Like toddler and adolescent, the terms embryo and fetus do not refer to non-humans, but humans in a particular stage of development. Fetus is a Latin word meaning "young one" or "little child." Is stage of development related to a person’s worth? Is a two-year old worth less than a 6-year-old, etc?

Prior to the earliest first-trimester abortions, the unborn already has every body part she will ever have. At 18 days, after conception, the heart is forming and the eyes start to develop. By 30 days, she has multiplied in size ten thousand times. She has a brain and blood flows through her veins. By 42 days, the skeleton is formed and the brain is controlling the movement of the muscles and organs. After the first trimester, nothing new develops or begins functioning. The child only grows and matures.



The fetus is just a part of the woman's body, like an arm or her hair. She should be able to do with it what she wants.

A body part is defined by the common genetic code it shares with the rest of it’s body; the unborn’s genetic code differs entirely from the mother’s. Being "inside something" is not the same as being part of something. A car is not part of a garage because it is parked there. Human beings should not be discriminated against because of their "place of residence."



It’s unfair to bring children into a world when they’re not wanted.

There’s a major difference between and unwanted pregnancy and an unwanted child. Every child is wanted by someone. There are currently 200,000 couples in the US desperately seeking to adopt, yet less than 25,000 babies available each year. Demand is so great, that couples are forced to adopt in China and Russia, often spending more than $20,000 to do so.

Not just "normal" babies are wanted – many people request babies with Down’s Syndrome and there have been lists of over a hundred couples waiting to adopt babies with spina bifida.

Slave owners argued that slavery was in the best interest of blacks, since they couldn’t make it on their own. Exploiting people and stripping them of their rights is always easier when we tell ourselves we’re doing it for their good rather than our own.




No one should be expected to donate her body as a life-support system for someone else.

The right to life doesn’t increase with age and size; otherwise toddlers and adolescents would have less of a right to live than adults.

What is really at stake is the mother’s lifestyle, as opposed to the baby’s life. No one has an absolute unconditional right to a lifestyle. It is always governed by its effects on others. There are 1,000’s of restrictions on us including no-smoking provisions, noise and zoning ordinances, etc. Finally, is it reasonable for society to expect an adult to live with a temporary inconvenience if the only alternative is killing a child?


What about rape and incest?

Less than 1% of all abortions are due to rape or incest. Furthermore, since conception doesn’t occur immediately after intercourse, pregnancy can be prevented in nearly all rape cases by medical treatments including the morning after pill (MAP).

Nearly all the women interviewed in a recent survey said they regretted aborting the babies conceived via rape or incest. Of those giving an opinion, more than 90 percent said they would discourage other victims of sexual violence from having an abortion (see report)

Finally, if you found out today that your biological father had raped your mother, would you feel you no longer had a right to live?




Why Abortions Are Performed

The overwhelming majority of all abortions, (95%), are done as a means of birth control.

Only 1% are performed because of rape or incest;

1% because of fetal abnormalities;

3% due to the mother's health problems.

--Abortion is legal in the USA at any time throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy... FOR ANY REASON.

+::+::+::+::+::+::+::+::





A poem written by a woman after she had an abortion:

I leave you with a poem I wrote in loving memory of my dear
child:

I never really knew you,
I never knew your name...
we never said 'hello'
I guess I'm part to blame.
I never really knew you,
I'd seen you from a glance...
our eyes never met,
I wasn't given half a chance.
Just a faded picture
emblazoned in my mind,
I walked away from fate
when I left it all behind.
If only I'd have been
in a different time and place,
I'd have looked into your eyes
and smiled upon your face.
Like a tiny little seed,
you were given me to sow...
but I dried up all your rain
and never got to see you grow.
It grew ever colderthe day we said 'goodbye'
I'd never hold you in my arms
or listen to you cry.
The decision that I made
brought an end to our world,
and to this day I wonder,
were you a little boy, or girl?
You'd never speak my name,
our fingers never touched,
who would ever think
I would miss you oh, so much?
Don't think I didn't love you,
or want you in my life...
the path I chose to walk,
still cuts me like a knife.
I'll never watch you walk to me
or frolic in the sun...
can you forgive your Mommy
for the deed that she had done?
Nothing can replace
the void I feel inside,
whenever I reflect upon
the part of me that died.
May the Lord above forgive me,
as every day I pray
to ask him for His mercy
when I took your breath away.
I ask for Him to hold you
in the comfort of His arms,
and angels guard you as you sleep
and keep you safe from harm.
Little one, don't shed those tears
I'll be with you by& by
where among the clouds in Heaven above
on angel's wings we'll fly.

With love always & forever,
Mommy

This is a difficult question for me to answer.

Do I think abortion is wrong? Yes. Would I ever have one? Never in a million years. Do I think it's my duty or right to impose my belief of abortion onto U.S. law? No, I strongly believe in basing our laws on ethics, on passing laws that protect people from having others infringe on their freedoms.

The law that makes killing illegal is there because it infringes on my right to live, the law of speeding down the highway, because it infringes on my right to drive safely without being hurt, the law that says you can't sell drugs, because it infringes on my right to live in an enviroment without drug violence. So you see, our laws are based on commonsense and what will or will not infringe on someone elses rights and freedoms.

Banning abortion? Abortion doesn't infringe upon anyones rights, it's not keeping you or me from having freedom and security, so I can't really make a legal, secular case on why it should be outlawed. I can base my case on my spiritual beliefs, but then I'd have to move to a country like Afghanistan where laws are based on one religion, and I'm not all that interested in turning into that kind of country.

Some will say, well it's infringing upon the babies right to life, but then you get into an argument over when life begins. I personally am involved in giving women pro-life choices like adoption, abstinence teaching, and responsible sex. I think all life is sacred, but I struggle with this, as well as the death penalty.

I'm torn between knowing they're wrong, but knowing it would be unfair, and unconstitutional to impose my religious beliefs on an entire group of people.

loveisallyouneed said:

This is a difficult question for me to answer.

Do I think abortion is wrong? Yes. Would I ever have one? Never in a million years. Do I think it's my duty or right to impose my belief of abortion onto U.S. law? No, I strongly believe in basing our laws on ethics, on passing laws that protect people from having others infringe on their freedoms.

The law that makes killing illegal is there because it infringes on my right to live, the law of speeding down the highway, because it infringes on my right to drive safely without being hurt, the law that says you can't sell drugs, because it infringes on my right to live in an enviroment without drug violence. So you see, our laws are based on commonsense and what will or will not infringe on someone elses rights and freedoms.

Banning abortion? Abortion doesn't infringe upon anyones rights, it's not keeping you or me from having freedom and security, so I can't really make a legal, secular case on why it should be outlawed. I can base my case on my spiritual beliefs, but then I'd have to move to a country like Afghanistan where laws are based on one religion, and I'm not all that interested in turning into that kind of country.

Some will say, well it's infringing upon the babies right to life, but then you get into an argument over when life begins. I personally am involved in giving women pro-life choices like adoption, abstinence teaching, and responsible sex. I think all life is sacred, but I struggle with this, as well as the death penalty.

I'm torn between knowing they're wrong, but knowing it would be unfair, and unconstitutional to impose my religious beliefs on an entire group of people.

Click to expand...

That is exactly how I feel, exactly in a nutshell, well maybe bigger than a nutshell but.. Well said!!

abortion is such a tricky subject. politically I'm pretty much pro-choice, as I believe that not every situation is black and white. sometimes abortion may be the best solution, and it's a decision that I doubt anyone takes lightly. frankly, even though I may not personally agree with the one getting the abortion, I'd rather they got it done safely and legally then in some illegal back-alley type place.
one of the reasons that I personally don't agree with abortion is that I recently had the pleasure of hearing a child sing her heart out to a song with lyrics "I'm alive" (see my sig for a sample). not by any coincidence I'm sure, she's chosen this as her favourite song (and she knows many, many songs!!). this was a child who was born in difficult circumstances and could have resulted in an abortion had she not been born to a family who doesn't believe in abortion. seeing her belt out those words with such joy was so thrilling to watch, she truly is happy to be alive, even at such a young age she can appreciate that.

I don't like the choices to this poll. At least it could be pro-choice or pro-life. Personally I perfer anti-life or pro-life. That's just how I see it.

Pure Paradox said:

No one should be expected to donate her body as a life-support system for someone else.

The right to life doesn?t increase with age and size; otherwise toddlers and adolescents would have less of a right to live than adults.

What is really at stake is the mother?s lifestyle, as opposed to the baby?s life. No one has an absolute unconditional right to a lifestyle. It is always governed by its effects on others. There are 1,000?s of restrictions on us including no-smoking provisions, noise and zoning ordinances, etc. Finally, is it reasonable for society to expect an adult to live with a temporary inconvenience if the only alternative is killing a child?

Click to expand...

Pregnancy can be a lot more than a temporary inconvenience. It can cost a woman her life for starters. It can affect her long term physical and mental health. It can cause the loss of employment. Consider how hard it is for a pregnant woman to find new employment and what effect this might have on any other dependents before you say that issue is irrelevant.

There can be serious long term consequences for carrying a child to term. It is not simply a "temporary inconvenience".

Why Abortions Are Performed

The overwhelming majority of all abortions, (95%), are done as a means of birth control.

Only 1% are performed because of rape or incest;

1% because of fetal abnormalities;

3% due to the mother's health problems.

Click to expand...

I hate when these statistics are bought out without any real information given on why abortions are sought. It's not a simple matter of birth control. Using that wording suggests that these women did not bother to use contraceptives and did not bother to even consider if they could realistically have a child at that time. It's implying conclusions that simply aren't true.

Women have abortions for a large variety of reasons. Many of them aren't "I just can't be bothered". Some are, and that's a pity, but not all of them.

Financial reasons aren't something to be ignored. It costs money to be pregnant. To actually go through with a birth. Especially if there's complications. In addition to medical costs there is at least some income loss. If a woman already has two kids she has to support and she can't get additional financial help from the government, what is she to do? I'm sure you'll suggest charities, but they're hardly reliable and when you have kids you need reliable income. Should this be relevant? No it shouldn't, but too many conservatives fight against government help for those in need, that it is relevant. It's sad, but life's like that.

It can cause the loss of employment. Consider how hard it is for a pregnant woman to find new employment and what effect this might have on any other dependents before you say that issue is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

So what you're saying is, a woman's job is much more important than a human life? I can't believe how people place a price on human life.

loveisallyouneed said:

Do I think abortion is wrong? Yes. Would I ever have one? Never in a million years. Do I think it's my duty or right to impose my belief of abortion onto U.S. law? No, I strongly believe in basing our laws on ethics, on passing laws that protect people from having others infringe on their freedoms.

Click to expand...

To be prochoice about abortion is to be pro-abortion. Suppose drug dealing were legalized and you heard this argument:

"I’m personally not in favor of someone dealing drugs at schools, but that’s a matter to decide between the drug dealer and his attorney. We don’t want to go back to the days when drug dealing was illegal, and people died in back alleys from bad cocaine. I personally wouldn’t buy drugs, so I’m not pro-drugs. I’m just pro-choice about drug dealing."

Basically, being personally against abortion but favoring another’s right to abortion is self-contradictory and morally baffling. It’s exactly like saying, "We’re personally against child abuse, but we defend our neighbor’s right to abuse his child if that is his choice."

Someone who is prochoice about rape might argue that it’s not the same as being pro-rape. What’s the difference, since being prochoice about rape allows and promotes the legitimacy of rape? Those who were prochoice about slavery believed their moral position was sound since they personally didn’t own slaves. Similarly, most people in Germany did not favor the killing of Jews, but did nothing to stop the killing.

Some people have an illusion that being personally opposed to abortion while believing others should be free to choose it is some kind of compromise between pro-abortion and prolife positions. It isn’t. Pro-choice people vote the same as pro-abortion people. Both oppose legal protection for the unborn, and both are willing for children to die – even if they do not directly participate in the killings.

Pure Paradox said:

So what you're saying is, a woman's job is much more important than a human life? I can't believe how people place a price on human life.

Click to expand...

Did you actually read my post?

You can't live in our world without money. How is a woman supposed to have a child when she can't work? She can't afford housing, food, medical care...etc...not to mention the effect this would have on any other dependents she has.

Should it be a concern? No, and I fully support policy changes which would mean woman wouldn't have to seek an abortion for financial reasons. Do you? Until such policy places come into place I can't judge them for not being able to do the impossible.

What would the pro-choicers say if they had been aborted?

I do not mean to make light of this issue, but how would you feel if someone killed you?

Abortion is depriving a person of life for the sake of convenience.
Depriving someone of life for the sake of convenience is wrong.
Therefore, abortion is wrong.

If you were to ask me if I supported abortion as a primary means of birth control, I would say, "no". With all the means of birth control available, one really doesn't have to get pregnant if one wants to avoid pregnancy.

On the other hand, I'm not going to tell a women who has been raped, or who was coerced into sex against her will (for instance, a teenage girl who becomes pregnant by a male family member), or a woman whose life will be endangered if she continues with the pregnancy, or a family who learns the child will have catastrophic birth defects resulting in great suffering and an early death for the child (Tay-Sachs disease, anecephaly, etc.) that the pregnant mother MUST carry the child to term AND raise that child! In the case of rape and incest, continuing the pregnancy against the will of the mother is nothing short of re-victimizing the woman. In the case of continuing the pregnancy against the will of the mother when the pregnancy will endanger the life of the mother, or result in a painful death for the child after it is born is cruel and amoral. It defies common sense and, to me, flies completely against the spirit and intention of the Scriptures.

What I'd like to ask is why we, as a society, are so concerned about the life of the child BEFORE it's born, and not concerned with what happens to the child and the family AFTER the child is born. Why aren't we offering pre-natal health care to pregnant women, as well as health care to both mother and child following the birth of the child? Why aren't we making sure the family has access to adequate nutrition, housing, and education while the child is growing up? And why are we surprised when we don't do ANY of these things, claiming that they are "socialism" and "giving assistance to the greedy", and the child grows up and joins a gang or becomes a criminal?

Why are we not concerned that 43 million Americans have NO health insurance, and an equal amount have health insurance which is inadequate or pays only for catastrophic care? Why are we not concerned that 63 million Americans go to bed hungry every evening? We say that nine million Americans are unemployed -- but we don't count the other eleven million people whose unemployment benefits have run out and thus are no longer counted (so the real unemployment rate is closer to 12 percent). We insist that families should work -- so where are the jobs these people are supposed to go to in order to support their familes and children?

To re-state: "choice" is NOT a strictly "black and white" issue; and it's only a very small part of a much larger problem.