Abortion - can there ever be peace?

[chipmunk]

In fact, pro-lifers do believe the two acts are morally equivalent. The reason is that we believe that both a seven week old fetus and a seven year old child are living human beings. Therefore, both acts destroy the life of a human being. We would say that a comparison between a seven month old fetus and a seven year old child is no different than a comparison between a seven year old child and a seventy year old adult.

I'm a person who is pro-choice or anti-illegal abortions.

I too believe a zygotes and fetuses are human beings. That is, that they are members of our species, and that human life begins at conception. I do make the concession that two situations exist where conception is not the start of a unique human--twins and chimeras (However, for practical purposes this argument mostly holds until 14 days after fertilization, not that twinning or the making of chimera's can't happen after this, it's just the best marker of when we start seeing things that create possible unviable human life). This is sort of a pet peeve of mine. ^.^

However, even believing that, I don't feel that the life of a human at embryo/fetal stages should trump the life or quality of life of the woman carrying them. I do believe that once they've reached the age of being viable outside of their mother, that few circumstances warrant an abortion and I listed those before (mother's life and severe fetal deforment). It's also because as a woman I don't want laws telling me what to do with my uterus, and I wouldn't seek to impose those on anyone else either. I would like to see more responsible people that don't require abortions, but life turns in ways we do not all imagine and I would never dream of having those options taken away for people who need them.

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste all..

fascinating.

i wonder... how many pro-lifers on this thread are in favor of the death penalty?

that's always struck me in such a strange way that i find it hard to believe that beings hold these views.. yet, they clearly do.

metta,

~v

 

[CCGirl]

How do people propose Keeping women pregnant who wish to have an abortion? In order for this dialogue to continue, their must be an acknowledgement that abortions will happen regardless of legality. Whether it is the "back alley", or throwing themselves down a flight of stairs, how are you planning on stopping this practice that has always been around?

Secondly, let's say that women are forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy, who is looking after all these unwanted children? What about the millions of unwanted children that already are here?


Let's hear the plan.

 

[Pats]

There's nothing duplicitous about it. It's simply a position taken by someone who realises that it should not be the government's job to legislate their own moral views. There are plenty of things I think are immoral but I don't think should be legal. Do you believe that every single thing you think is immoral should be illegal?

Is it illegal to tell a lie? Sometimes, but not all the time.

Is it illegal to cheat on your wife? No, and I see no reason to make that into a law.

Is it legal to take unborn human life and sacrifice it on the alter of someone's opinion that isn't "life," yes. How sad.

Is it duplicitous to believe abortion is killing but voite pro-choice? I don't see how it could be viewed otherwise. "I believe it's wrong to have an abortion."

"Why?"

"It's taking a human life. But I don't think we should make it a law..."

Duplicitous, indeed.

 

[Pats]

*sigh* (Abortions = termination of fetus, not unborn child, not child.) Even an teenager does not have the same rights as it's mother, it can not go to an x-rated movie, or buy from an "adult book" store legally. Is that also an unjust condition of inequallity?

I think aristotle came up with this but I might be thinking of the wrong philospher: "equality is treating unequal people unequally and equal people equally".

You surely do not expect a man with only one leg to walk as far as a man with two legs?

Here's a quote:

Day 6: embryo begins implantation in the uterus.
Day 22: heart begins to beat with the child's own blood, often a different type than the mothers'.
Week 3: By the end of third week the child's backbone spinal column and nervous system are forming. The liver, kidneys and intestines begin to take shape.
Week 4: By the end of week four the child is ten thousand times larger than the fertilized egg.
Week 5: Eyes, legs, and hands begin to develop.

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/fetaldevelopment.html

Are you expecting me to see the comparison of the legal rights of teens to adults or the walking capabilities of the lame to the fit as even remotely being in the same class of a humans (fetus or otherwise) right to not be killed?

Look at the picture of the 5 and 12 week fetus shown here. Looks enough like a person to me.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Is it illegal to tell a lie? Sometimes, but not all the time.

Is it illegal to cheat on your wife? No, and I see no reason to make that into a law.

Is it legal to take unborn human life and sacrifice it on the alter of someone's opinion that isn't "life," yes. How sad.

Is it duplicitous to believe abortion is killing but voite pro-choice? I don't see how it could be viewed otherwise. "I believe it's wrong to have an abortion."

"Why?"

"It's taking a human life. But I don't think we should make it a law..."

Duplicitous, indeed.

So you are happy for SOME of your moral beliefs to not be law, but this particular moral belief of yours, you believe SHOULD be law. More, you think anyone who agrees with your moral belief in this regard must also believe that it should be law. That's simply nonsense. I don't believe abortion is morally wrong; I nevertheless do not know if I would ever have one (if I were a woman). I do not know how I would advise a friend who was in that position. I am not 'for' abortion - to say that I am is completely untrue. I am, however 'for' its legality on the basis that nobody has the right to make that decision for another woman.

If you can't see the reasonableness of the above position - even if you disagree with it - without calling it duplicitous, then to be consistent you must want every one of your moral beleifs to be law. If you don't, then you are being 'duplicitous' to precisely the same extent.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Looks enough like a person to me.

Sorry but "looks enough like a person to Pats" is not a valid indicator that it IS a person or that it should have the rights of one.

 

[Pats]

So you are happy for SOME of your moral beliefs to not be law, but this particular moral belief of yours, you believe SHOULD be law. More, you think anyone who agrees with your moral belief in this regard must also believe that it should be law. That's simply nonsense. I don't believe abortion is morally wrong; I nevertheless do not know if I would ever have one (if I were a woman). I do not know how I would advise a friend who was in that position. I am not 'for' abortion - to say that I am is completely untrue.

I am, however 'for' its legality on the basis that nobody has the right to make that decision for another woman.

If you can't see the reasonableness of the above position - even if you disagree with it - without calling it duplicitous, then to be consistent you must want every one of your moral beleifs to be law. If you don't, then you are being 'duplicitous' to precisely the same extent.

That arguement is flawed. For you to say that, you're saying I should believe we should be put on trial for impure thoughts and jailed. This is incomparable with legalizing the killing of human beings. See my link on the previous page. At what stage do you think most abortions occur? It's anywhere between that 6th week and the 14th one, after it's heart is beating, it has a spine a nervous system, arms and legs...

Are you comparing the legalizing the killing of a fetus to watching a inappropriate contento? That, my friend, makes no sense.

It's either wrong to have an abortion or it's not.

I see again, you're arguing the rights of the mother. Let's put aside the issue of rape for a moment, and consider the thousands of abortions taking place because women who were decidedly sexually active got inconvenienced by pregnancy. What gives her the right to take a life?

 

[kopilo]

Here's a quote:

Day 6: embryo begins implantation in the uterus.
Day 22: heart begins to beat with the child's own blood, often a different type than the mothers'.
Week 3: By the end of third week the child's backbone spinal column and nervous system are forming. The liver, kidneys and intestines begin to take shape.
Week 4: By the end of week four the child is ten thousand times larger than the fertilized egg.
Week 5: Eyes, legs, and hands begin to develop.

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/fetaldevelopment.html

Are you expecting me to see the comparison of the legal rights of teens to adults or the walking capabilities of the lame to the fit as even remotely being in the same class of a humans (fetus or otherwise) right to not be killed?

Look at the picture of the 5 and 12 week fetus shown here. Looks enough like a person to me.

*YAWN* I have been through sex ed classes before.

A fetus is not an unborn child until the 16th week, like it or lump it. If you consider a fetus not human that is your own decision, not mine, also I do not care for images, they are irrelevent to me.
As I believe the genetics and parents of the fetus determine if it is human or not.

I expected you to recognise that different types of people have different rights and when you talk about equality + persons, you have to recognise what you are saying by saying to give a fetus the same rights as the mother. Rights are rights, they were just examples, I could think of a few more relevent ones along the lines of capital punishment, euthanasia, coma patients.

Are you comparing the legalizing the killing of a fetus to watching a inappropriate contento? That, my friend, makes no sense.

Then again maybe I shouldn't expect such things or bother with more examples, (that sentance as it stands doesn't make too much sense either) but/because I think you are trying to say, law of killing a fetus vs law of inappropriate contentography makes no sense?

 

[Electric Skeptic]

That arguement is flawed. For you to say that, you're saying I should believe we should be put on trial for impure thoughts and jailed.

No, I'm saying that if you believe impure thoughts are immoral, but should be legal, you're being duplicitous. Same as your claim earlier. If it's wrong, it should be illegal. According to your logic.

This is incomparable with legalizing the killing of human beings.

Of course it's comparable. They are both (a) moral issues, in that some people think them to be morally wrong or right, and (b) (potentially) legal issues.

See my link on the previous page. At what stage do you think most abortions occur? It's anywhere between that 6th week and the 14th one, after it's heart is beating, it has a spine a nervous system, arms and legs...

Completely irrelevant to this discussion.

Are you comparing the legalizing the killing of a fetus to watching a inappropriate contento? That, my friend, makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense. Both are acts that have a moral content. That MAKES them comprable to that extent.

It's either wrong to have an abortion or it's not.

Close. It's either wrong, it's not, or it has no moral content. They are the three possibilities. But the issue isn't its moral content. It's whether or not it is defensible or duplicitous to hold that it is immoral, but should be legal. By your earlier statements, you think that it is NOT duplicitous to hold the view that a certain act is immoral and should be legal. But you want special treatment for THIS act.

I see again, you're arguing the rights of the mother. Let's put aside the issue of rape for a moment, and consider the thousands of abortions taking place because women who were decidedly sexually active got inconvenienced by pregnancy. What gives her the right to take a life?

This is not really relevant to this discussion, but it's an easy one. The fact that the life is inside her.

 

[CCGirl]

Anyone going to answer these questions????

How do people propose Keeping women pregnant who wish to have an abortion? In order for this dialogue to continue, their must be an acknowledgement that abortions will happen regardless of legality. Whether it is the "back alley", or throwing themselves down a flight of stairs, how are you planning on stopping this practice that has always been around?

Secondly, let's say that women are forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy, who is looking after all these unwanted children? What about the millions of unwanted children that already are here?


Let's hear the plan.

 

[CCGirl]

I see again, you're arguing the rights of the mother. Let's put aside the issue of rape for a moment, and consider the thousands of abortions taking place because women who were decidedly sexually active got inconvenienced by pregnancy. What gives her the right to take a life?

It is her body. Enough said.

 

[sister_maynard]

I second CCGirl's question. We're veering into the morality of abortion, and there are already several debates about that. What would really happen if your ideal of totally illegal abortion was eneacted tomorrow? Her point about the practicalities of the situation is a valid one that bears discussion.

 

[loriersea]

Well, I think there are two answers to CCGirl's questions:

1. People who favor illegal abortion believe that unwanted pregnancies will magically cease the moment abortion becomes illegal, or

2. They are fully aware that women will continue to have abortions in large numbers if abortion is outlawed, and don't really care, just as long as it's not legal.

 

[vossler]

If I knew of a way to reduce the level of murders to a fraction of their current levels but by doing so I would have to accept a change in the law that allowed murder in certain cases? I might be inclined to support such a plan. Again, if the ultimate goal was to eliminate murder. It is hardly a burden on me to legalize an action that won't actually be done if it's legalized.

I don't believe you should ever sanction something that is wrong in an effort to minimize it's effects. That's true whether it is murder or something as seemingly mundane as living together in an effort to see if we're compatible before getting married.

But again, it is a hard comparison to make. Let's look at something a little more parallel, at least on the legal front. Let's say our goal is to eliminate adultary (a God honoring goal indeed). Is outlawing adultary the right way to do that? I doubt anyone would say it is. But what about a plan that would make adultary an option that was hardly ever exercised by people. I can envision such a plan. But it would be a tough sell to Christians because it would require an acknowledgement that adultary exists and is a viable option.

You've got quite a broad vision. That can be handy at times, although I don't know how that vision can be applied here.

Let's face it, adultery will never be eliminated, if for no other reason because it is in our carnal nature to do it. It would be foolish to legislate a behavior that is easily hidden. Besides not everything that is wrong to do should have a corresponding law. That is one that fits that description.

I'm quite certain that is not what I'm saying. I would never say it is ok to kill your unborn child. Right now, it wouldn't matter if I said it anyway, because they have that right. My focus is on how to make that right one that is never exercised.

Yet if you don't object to abortions being legal you are in effect saying you approve, whether you do or not.

Hmmm. I'm not sure how to respond. I agree with what you are saying about how Christians should present themselves to the world and yet I don't believe I am compromising my beliefs. I certainly don't condone any of the activity which you and I would both agree is wrong (basically anything mentioned so far). That doesn't mean I don't recognize that it happens. My objective is to work for change within that framework. I don't consider that a compromise but I understand there are many who would. I respect that.

Nothing wrong with working for a change within the current laws. I applaud that, actually I applaud the fact that you are concerned about this issue. Most Christians are ambivalent with regard to abortion. They may have certain feelings, but they don't discuss them or act on them. I'm thankful that you not only are willing to discuss it but I can tell you'd also act on it.

The only thing I'd recommend is that you plant your philosophy firmly on the Bible and it's teachings. If you do you can never go wrong. I pray that God blesses you in this pursuit.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Yet if you don't object to abortions being legal you are in effect saying you approve, whether you do or not.

So, if you don't object to adultery being legal, you are in effect saying you approve?

Of course not. The idea that "if you think it should be legal, you think it's just fine" is nonsense. There are any number of things that we think are immoral or do not approve of that we don't think should be illegal.

 

[vossler]

So, if you don't object to adultery being legal, you are in effect saying you approve?

To a certain extent this is true. The thing is though adultery isn't something that can be legislated and enforced so it isn't as easy to state that you wish for it to be illegal, no matter how much you'd like it to be.

Of course not. The idea that "if you think it should be legal, you think it's just fine" is nonsense.

Not to me!

There are any number of things that we think are immoral or do not approve of that we don't think should be illegal.

True, if for no other reason because they are unenforceable. However, this doesn't mean we shouldn't state our thoughts or feelings concerning it.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

To a certain extent this is true. The thing is though adultery isn't something that can be legislated and enforced so it isn't as easy to state that you wish for it to be illegal, no matter how much you'd like it to be.

So you think adultery should be illegal, or you approve of it? There's no third option - which is it?

 

[kopilo]

It makes perfect sense. Both are acts that have a moral content. That MAKES them comprable to that extent.

Not just that, but also the possible reasoning behind them, the idea that rights can be given and taken away given a person's situation or actions.

 

[loriersea]

Let's face it, adultery will never be eliminated,

Neither will abortion. It's not as if we have no idea what would happen if abortion was outlawed: it was illegal, and it still happened, and by most accounts it happened very frequently.

if for no other reason because it is in our carnal nature to do it.

And, it is in our nature to not bear children when we don't want to. Throughout history, women have had ways--some safer than others--of ending pregnancies they didn't want. And, if they couldn't do that, infanticide has also been very common.

It would be foolish to legislate a behavior that is easily hidden.

And, in most cases, that applies to illegal abortions. There are many illegal abortion techniques, some of which are done in a woman's own home. There is no way to know that it has been done. It is very easily hidden, unless we are going to give every woman of childbearing age a mandatory pregnancy test each month, and then investigate her if she is pregnant one month and not the next.

Besides not everything that is wrong to do should have a corresponding law.

Exactly. Especially when the law will do more harm than good. While there is little evidence, if any, that outlawing abortion would reduce that abortion rate in any significant way, history shows us that it WILL result in many dead women.


One reason that abortion is not like murder or theft is that nobody wants an abortion. Nobody thinks, "I'd love to have an unwanted pregnancy so I can have an abortion." It's not a behavior that we need the law to restrain, or that the law could restrain, because it is not something anyone desires. On the other hand, people DO want to kill other people sometimes. People DO want to steal things sometimes. They DO find those acts appealing, and it's very likely that laws do restrain the behavior in many people. But, nobody finds abortion appealing. Nobody finds the idea of having one really exciting. Nobody wishes they could have one. Instead, it is ALWAYS the better of a number of really bad options, and even if it were illegal, it would still--as history shows--be the better of a number of really bad options for many women, unless we change things.

Again, the way to reduce the abortion rate in a safe, sane way that truly honors life is to make the alternatives to abortion--raising a child or giving a child up for adoption--more appealing and realistic, rather than making abortion more dangerous.