Abortion

[Havoc]

You guys have started the debate I am the biggest and most bluntly anal person on.

The issue is very one-sided, there can be no middle ground. You are either pro-life or pro-murder.

I'm pro-life by the way.

The reason I am, is not because of religon, the Bible, or God. Because none of those things have anything to do with abortion. That's right, nothing.

Facts are every reason I am anti-abortion. Solid scientific biological and medical facts. Where opinion is non-existant, because of proof.

The baby in the womb, is alive, human, and maturing as any human baby is.

The scientific definition of "alive":

Something that is growing, maturing, and replacing it's own dying cells.

That's something a fertilized egg can even boast. Thus proving the idea that "human life begins at moment of conception" is not an idea. But a proven fact.

And yes it is human, mere logic states that. I mean come one people, name on woman who gave birth an infant of any species except human.

And is it a person? Well can tell me just what is a person now?

Fact remains, you are killing a human baby in the womb, out of cold blood. That baby has no way of self-defense, and the killing is out of selfishness in just about every scenario.

Abortion as form of birh control is pure murder.

Abortion in cases of rape is rare. But it's still not right, not that I don't feel terrible for every innocent woman who falls victim to that hateful crime. But an act of violence, isn't solved with an act of violence.

Abortion in cases of incest. Believe it or not, not one case of this has ever been reported.

There is only one, and I mean only one, case where abortion is even remotely tolerable. And that is when a woman's life is threatened by the pregancy and/or delivery of the baby.

Otherwise, it's murder. Fact. Not my opinion. But fact.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy into this whole "it's not my right to decide for others" argument just because it can't apply to abortion. Unless of course, you think the authorities shouldn't have jailed Timothy McVeigh for killing a hundred or so people in Oklahome, because the U.S. law would have been "deciding for him".

Pro-choice, is pro-abortion. There's no difference.

Anyone wanna take me on? I dare you, I really do. I hate to get blunt, but I just don't tolerate murder

You're right you are very Anal. Plus you're rather given to making statements of belief and trying to pass them off as fact. Nice use of Fallacy of Equivocation there as well with the Oklahoma bombing thing. Nothing like using a heinous tragedy for your own purposes eh?

 

[BigToe]

Pro choice does not mean pro murder deary. i am pro CHOICE. i think that means people should be educated about their choices, namely adoption. i personally would never had an abortion. but i vote pro choice because my decisions shouldnt dictate how another lives their life.

 

[Arikay]

DXrocker: Just curious, why do you think the bible does not appear to consider abortion murder?

 

[DXRocker73]

ok, careful. pro-choicers will use that .01% of those cases to justify the other 99% thats just...lazy, selfish murder for convieniance.

Yes I know, but really I don't think you can use numbers in this case to say such a scenario isn't god enough for abortion, unless they are extremely low. It can never be fully exact whether or not the preganancy will kill the mother. Many times, it has been diagnosed that way, yet the mother survived. This is the only case, that I think the mother is at the right to make a decision. The bravest of women will give up their lives for the baby, I knew a mother who did. But I can't accuse the mother who doesn't give up her life of cowardice either.

You're right you are very Anal. Plus you're rather given to making statements of belief and trying to pass them off as fact. Nice use of Fallacy of Equivocation there as well with the Oklahoma bombing thing. Nothing like using a heinous tragedy for your own purposes eh?

I notice under your s/n you are a Celtic Witch. That's cool, my ancestry is Celtic. So I am as Celtic as well, even if I'm not Pagan since my family converted to Catholicism around the time of St. Patrick.


Though on our debating note however, no I'm not passing beliefs on as facts. Read a few books on child birth, you'll see that a baby in the womb is all alive, human, and even once a brain, and spine are developed, can feel pain.

Now if something is alive, human, and can feel pain, then what on earth posseses you to think you're not commiting a murder?


And yes, I will use the Oklahome city bombing. Same thing. Man kills innocent human beings. I will also use a man who breaks into a house and shoots the owner. I will also the girl who knifes a boy on the street for his wallet. I will even use Hitler who ordered the massacre of thousands of innocent Jews.

They're all the same as abortion. Taking a human life, for selfish reasons.

Pro choice does not mean pro murder deary. i am pro CHOICE. i think that means people should be educated about their choices, namely adoption. i personally would never had an abortion. but i vote pro choice because my decisions shouldnt dictate how another lives their life.

So again... you're pro-choice right? So you mean to tell me that Adolf Hitler had a right to choose to murder thousands of people? So long as it educated? (And these figures aren't even including Jews.) You're pro-choice... so Saddam Hussein has a right to choose to murder children in front of their parents? So long as it's educated?

DXrocker: Just curious, why do you think the bible does not appear to consider abortion murder?

Hold on there, I never said the Bible doesn't consider abortion murder. Because believe me when I say it does. I say the Bible has nothing to do with abortion in the pro-life movement.

The Bible just says murder is wrong. Well by simple definition of murder that's exactly what abortion is.

The reason I say the Bible has nothing to do with abortion, is because all to-often when I get into this debate, I have the Bible and religon forced down my throat because apparently it's "warped my thinking". But I find that ironic considering I've never used one Bible quote to defend the pro-life movement. Facts are on our side.

 

[Duggie]

DXrocker: Just curious, why do you think the bible does not appear to consider abortion murder?

The bible may not implicitly mention abortion but to suggest that it doesn't consider abortion as murder is wrong. I'm sure your familiar with the commandment Thou Shall not murder? If so, then allow me to give you some scriptures: Jeremiah 1:5 - "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you. Isaiah 49:1 - The Lord has called me from the womb. Exodus 21:22 - If men fight and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly.

These verses not only prove that God considers life, before it even enters the womb, but also whilst the woman is pregnant. It therefore goes without question that God would view abortion as the taking of innocent life.

 

[Ampmonster]

to anyone:

convieniance.
convieniance.
convieniance.

ok im done.

 

[DXRocker73]

Murder is convenient?

 

[Ampmonster]

it's done for convieniance almost everytime.
it's a shame.
*is on your side*

 

[BigToe]

appeal to emotions, sometime the only thing people can use to get others to consider their side.

had hitler been educated on all his choices and really learned what may result from each, the halocaust might not have happened. if saddam studied all his options and what each would bring about- he may have made decisions that made him well liked and not hated.

that is how i can respond to your little cries of emotional appeals. i'll throw the same bag of stones

 

[jayem]

The unborn entity within the pregnant woman’s body is not part of her body. The conceptus is a genetically distinct entity with its own unique and individual gender, blood type, bone-structure, and genetic code.
Although the unborn entity is attached to its mother, it is not part of her. To say that the unborn entity is part of its mother is to claim that the mother possesses four legs, two heads, two noses, and — with the case of a male conceptus — a penis and two testicles. Furthermore, since scientists have been able to achieve conception in a petri dish in the case of the "test-tube" baby, and this conceptus if it has white parents can be transferred to the body of a black woman and be born white, we know conclusively that the unborn is not part of the pregnant woman’s body. Certainly a woman has a right to control her own body, but the unborn entity, though for a time living inside her body, is not part of her body. Hence, abortion is not justified, since no one’s right to personal autonomy is so strong that it permits the arbitrary execution of others. In this respect this argument also begs the question, because it assumes that the unborn are not fully human.

Almost everybody's mind is made up on the abortion issue, and all the discussion probably won't change a thing. Though I don't agree with you, this is a good post. I'm going to present a counter argument. You mention autonomy, which is one of my favorite subjects. I agree that a fetus, in utero, is a genetically distinct individual. But the fetal-maternal relationship is unique. A fetus makes a direct physiologic demand on the mother's body. Once born, a child actually makes no demand on its birth mother at all--it can thrive perfectly well under the care of any motivated person who can supply proper nutrition and nurturing. A fetus directly uses the mother's heart, lungs, GI, tact, kidneys, etc. In my opinion, this requires the mother's consent. Just as we require consent before someone donates an organ. Now--one may claim that having sex, which certainly may result in pregnancy, implies consent if any pregnancy should result. I think not. Pregnancy is an on-going nine month process. And the physiologic demands on the mother increase as pregnancy progresses. I think the consent is also on-going. This is customary in other medical situations. If I give consent to begin a course of chemotherapy, I am not bound to complete it after starting. Even if I'm having surgery, assuming I am still conscious, I can withdraw consent at any time, and the surgeon will have to stop the operation (within the bounds of medical appropriateness, of course) and close me up. Now I don't believe the mother's right of consent is absolute through the entire nine months. When the fetus has reached a point of natural viability, around 24-25 weeks (which is is essence the point where it has a reasonable chance to survive independently of the mother's body, and WITHOUT needing artificial life support) then its autonomy supercedes that of the mother. {I use natural viability because this is not affected by technology. And I ONLY apply this criterion to a fetus IN UTERO. Once someone is born, they possess full autonomy as any other person, no matter what life support they may need.} I hope I've made myself clear. This post is getting long and covers a lot of territory. I don't expect to convince anyone, but I just wanted to present a slightly different slant for people to think about.

 

[Pooty]

Ha, moral relativism isn't such a self-killing theory. Just because you BELIEVE morals are NOT universal, which they AREN'T, doesn't mean you can't hold your own morality! Morals are based on individual perception, usually created by people observing things and deciding what they like (good) and what they dislike (bad). Killing is not WRONG killing is not RIGHT, it's just an ACTION.

 

[Dyrwen]

Certainly a woman has a right to control her own body, but the unborn entity, though for a time living inside her body, is not part of her body. Hence, abortion is not justified, since no one’s right to personal autonomy is so strong that it permits the arbitrary execution of others. In this respect this argument also begs the question, because it assumes that the unborn are not fully human.

If the body dwelling inside of her is dependent on her life to survive, then it is technically, dependent and requires her opinion on it's survival to be determined. The fetus is a threat to her life, if the baby dies, she might die too or even if it's born, it could kill her then during birth.

The entity is that which holds great control over the woman's life and is therefore her responsibility to control. If she wishes to cease it's control over her and destroy it, that is her right. I don't care what it is in there, it's just an organism with the potential to become something, but also with the potential to kill her. It is the woman's choice as to what to do with it, if it can't be removed and grown elsewhere, then it'll just have to be destroyed.

I've already discussed most of this here as well as written college papers (for my mother) on the topic itself.

Until it's out of her body, it's under her responsiblity. She may do what she wishes.

 

[Ampmonster]

the prochoicers seem to argue "when is it a life" and "well the bible says" and all that,
but they never address the cause of most abortions, which is careless promescuity.

 

[tcampen]

Jahem,

That was a great post. You presented some new arguments I had not considered before. While I consider myself pro-choice, I do see an increasing right to life of the fetus as it approaches viability outside the whom. Where do you draw the line for elective abortions?

 

[jayem]

Jahem,

That was a great post. You presented some new arguments I had not considered before. While I consider myself pro-choice, I do see an increasing right to life of the fetus as it approaches viability outside the whom. Where do you draw the line for elective abortions?

Thanks for your response. I'm just talking about the legal aspects here. I would use the point of natural viability as where the fetus should be considered a legal "person," with autonomy and rights independent of the mother. Using natural viability, which is when the fetus has developed to the extent that it can survive without intensive artificial life support, avoids the effect of advancing technology causing a continually moving target. When you go back to the old pediatric literature, before ventilators, lung surfactant, umbilical catherization, and the other high tech stuff was available, premature infants had just over a 50% chance of survival at 25 weeks. So, for legal purposes, I would say that abortion should not be criminalized up to 25 weeks of gestational age. After that, the states can enact reasonable restrictions. I think the best way is really to have a constitutional amendment to define explicity when an individual becomes a legal "person." And I would define personhood as occurring in two situations, whichever comes first: A) at birth, no matter where in gestation it occurs, and B) at 25 weeks of gestational age, as determined by standard, accepted obstetric techniques. I emphasize that "B" applies only when the fetus is in utero. Once a child is born, it is fully a person no matter what life support it requires. So, in summary, I would allow elective abortion up to 25 weeks. After that, it can be restricted--though medical necessity should certainly be excepted. All this is just a discussion of legal issues. I agree that elective abortion may sometimes be morally questionable, and I would never claim that terminating a pregnancy is virtuous. But I don't want to give the state too much power over what is, in my opinion, a personal medical matter, at least up to 25 weeks. I think this is a fair and reasonable balance btween the interests of a pregnant woman and a fetus.

 

[tcampen]

the prochoicers seem to argue "when is it a life" and "well the bible says" and all that,
but they never address the cause of most abortions, which is careless promescuity.

So what? What does this have to do with anything? Does your pro-life argument change for the monagamous couple using birth control, but still get pregnant? What about the rape victim, as rare as that might be?

How the woman got pregnant is irrelevant to the issue of whether abortion should be legal if you consider the fertilized egg to be a human with all the same rights to life as you or me. Less than 13% of those who get abortions used no birth control at all (CDC), so I think the word "careless" cannot honestly apply to most abortions. This is a red herring argument.

 

[Ampmonster]

red herring...
NO SEX = NO ABORTION

 

[tcampen]

red herring...
NO SEX = NO ABORTION

No sex = the end of the human species in one generation.

No sex = eliminating a basic function of virtually every living organism.

No sex = an incomplete relationship between a married couple.

No sex = a lot of things that have nothing to do with abortion.


My point is that pointing one's finger at the young woman considering an abortion, and saying "you dirty, permiscuous, *#@!*y, girl" is not going to entice her to carry that child to term, just the opposite. Focusing on the woman who is pregnant, this is not the argument to make. It's a much more complicated situation than a lot of shaking one's finger in shame.

 

[Ampmonster]

tangents! all off them.
cmon answer the real question, or are you too comfortable throwing babies in garbage cans.

 

[KennySe]

Pro choice does not mean pro murder deary. i am pro CHOICE. i think that means people should be educated about their choices, namely adoption. i personally would never had an abortion. but i vote pro choice because my decisions shouldnt dictate how another lives their life.

"WHAT IS IT?" Read the link I posted around page 2.

If it is determined that the unborn is unique from the mother, (different DNA, blood type, organs etc), then your "pro-choice stance" is to allow someone (mother) to cease the life of another (unborn).

You allow the woman to end life.