In Perspective.

[JudyB1169]

I am Pro-Life and I am proud of it!!!!!!!!!! That's my story and I'm sticking to it!

 

[Hentenza]

For some, there are more pressing matters than the love of another--matters such as survival. If a newborn baby would make it more difficult for the potential mother to survive, we cannot in good conscience force the mother to carry the fetus to term. Newborn babies are not necessarily wanted or loved, particularly if they present too great a burden on already strained resources.

The problem is that the numbers do not support the survival theory. The vast majority of abortions are done for reasons other than survival. See the latest Alan Guttmacher institute study done in 2004.

I have already spent some paragraphs discussing the impact that a baby may have on limited resources; see my post that begins, "This adds an entirely new dimension to the debate on abortion, and raises an excellent point: What of the already-living?"

Interesting. Again look at the study that I cited above. The logic you are using here would be the same as someone getting a credit card, filling it to the brim, and then deciding not to pay it because it would put undue strain on their finances.

 

[Eleveness]

The problem is that the numbers do not support the survival theory. The vast majority of abortions are done for reasons other than survival. See the latest Alan Guttmacher institute study done in 2004.

I am uninterested in statistics; I am only interested in the logic and theory of human rights. The right to private property includes the right to decide how that property is used, and forcing a mother to devote resources to a newborn baby would constitute a breach of her property rights.

The logic you are using here would be the same as someone getting a credit card, filling it to the brim, and then deciding not to pay it because it would put undue strain on their finances.

Interesting analogy, but a flawed one. When one purchases an item, implicit in the act of purchasing is the assurance that the goods will eventually be paid for. The merchant charges the credit card with the good faith that the charge represents adequate payment for the good, and the credit card company permits the charge with the good faith that the debt will eventually be repaid. By signing the credit card application form, one is asserting that all charges made to the card will eventually be repaid.

No such assurance regarding carrying a fetus to term is made when a woman has sex. A woman does not necessarily wish to procreate when she has sex. See my post that begins, "There are reasons for wanting to have sex besides procreation."

 

[exxxys]

I'm not much of a scientist, but couldn't a benign tumour have stem cells or DNA that could be used to clone a human?

And yes, I did mean tumours with DNA.

I always hate to bring up my sexuality on here... I feel like people will look at me like 'w****' or something else.... because I am so young, that I cannot possibly love but this is besides the point, I agree with Eleveness. Humans shouldn't be expected to have sex only for procreation. Sex is a wonderful way of showing love.

What about this: Two people use the Pill AND Condoms, and they both fail. They were careful, but they still got pregnant. Would it be fair to force them to have the baby?

I am aware, also that not all children from abusive homes become abusers themselves, but it's a difficult cycle to break.

 

[Trashionista]

Even as someone who is a rabid pro-choice-r, I can't get behind this tumror argument.
There really isn't a comparison between a fetus and a tumor.
A tumor should be removed from the body.
A fetus should or shouldn't, depending on how that's going to affect the mother. If giving birth isn't the best option for her right now, then she should remove the fetus.
Whereas a tumor should probably be removed.

 

[Trashionista]

What about this: Two people use the Pill AND Condoms, and they both fail. They were careful, but they still got pregnant. Would it be fair to force them to have the baby?

No.
But depending upon where they live, the mother has the right to not give birth and to abort the fetus.
But I still don't see the comparison here between tumor and fetus.

 

[Eleveness]

But I still don't see the comparison here between tumor and fetus.

Pro-lifers are often claiming that a fetus must not be aborted because it has full human DNA. The original poster claimed that a tumor also has full human DNA, so by the pro-lifer's logic, a tumor would be just as sacred, and deserving of just as much protection, as a fetus. It is a reductio ad absurdum of an argument frequently used by those who are pro-life.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
(I can't link it because I haven't yet posted enough comments.)

Note that a reductio ad absurdum is not a logical fallacy. It is related to the principle of modus tollens from mathematical logic:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens

 

[katautumn]

The tumor/fingernail/dead ends of the hair arguments are absurd. Someone who has never had children would not be able to fully understand the difference.

With that said, I hate abortion. I think it's tragic and I wish there was no need for it whatsoever. Even still, until the day comes where there are better options or women feel they are more able to carry a pregnancy to term without fear of social stigmas, poverty, lack of support in their families or even in their workplace, it should be legal. I realize that the end result of a botched illegal abortion is a double tragedy - instead of one life being lost, there are two.

 

[Eleveness]

With that said, I hate abortion. I think it's tragic and I wish there was no need for it whatsoever. Even still, until the day comes where there are better options or women feel they are more able to carry a pregnancy to term without fear of social stigmas, poverty, lack of support in their families or even in their workplace, it should be legal. I realize that the end result of a botched illegal abortion is a double tragedy - instead of one life being lost, there are two.

This paragraph is full of of inconsistencies and contradictions. I am thoroughly confused.

• You understand that a woman has an abortion to avoid "social stigmas, poverty, lack of support," yet you hate abortion? Do you hate the attempts made by women to avoid poverty and maintain the support of others?
• You "wish there was no need for [abortion] whatsoever," yet you acknowledge the existence of social stigma, poverty, and the rest? I suppose it is noble to wish that one needn't worry about stigma, absence of support, and so on, but as long as those things exist, there exists a need for abortion, right?
• It is true that a botched abortion can result in the death of the pregnant woman. Such is the case with every medical procedure. Presumably, the patient (in this case, the pregnant woman) is aware of the risks prior to going through with the operation (in this case, the abortion)--one should hope that the abortion doctor explains all of the risks to the woman beforehand. Presumably--and this is the most important part--the woman is having the abortion by her own free will, i.e. no one is forcing her to undergo the operation. If it is her wish to go through with the abortion, who are we to stop her?
• It's even difficult for me to determine whether you're truly pro-life or pro-choice. (I'm firmly pro-choice.) It seems that on the one hand, you hate abortion, but on the other hand, you... accept abortion? Such cognitive dissonance is not good for one's mental health.

I apologize if it seems like I'm being overly antagonistic or even hostile. I try to be a calm, rational person, but I hate being confused. I do everything in my power to avoid being confused, hence the above questions.

 

[katautumn]

I am pro-choice from a political standpoint. I hate that there is a need for abortion. I hate that abortion ends a life and that many women end up being harmed emotionally as the result of it. Many women who have abortions would have chosen another option had they felt the proper resources would have been made available to them.

I don't think there are many pro-choice people who just love abortion and think it's the greatest thing in the world. But I also realize that comparing the fetus to tumors, hair and fingernail clippings or downplaying the seriousness behind the procedure and its aftermath doesn't help the pro-choice cause at all. It just gives more ammo to people who are pro-life to further their stereotype of pro-choice individuals - that we're all a bunch of heartless, selfish baby murder sympathizers.

 

[Eleveness]

I am pro-choice from a political standpoint. I hate that there is a need for abortion. I hate that abortion ends a life and that many women end up being harmed emotionally as the result of it. Many women who have abortions would have chosen another option had they felt the proper resources would have been made available to them.

I understand the source of your cognitive dissonance: you hate that which you feel is necessary (namely, abortion). I understand that such dissonance can lead to suffering on your part, so I'd like to try to help you (with your permission, of course).

I understand that you value human life, and since you see abortion as the termination of human life, you hate abortion. I wish for you to ask yourself these two questions: Are there any circumstances under which a human life would cease to lose value? Are there any circumstances under which the value of one life may rightfully come at the cost of the reduction of the value of another life?

I remind you that not only is the life of the fetus wholly dependent on the life of the mother (i.e. the fetus relies on the mother for sustenance, and it is absolutely impossible for the fetus to obtain sustenance in any other manner), but the presence of the fetus is often damaging to the health of the mother. Since the fetus has no choice but to act in this manner, I hold that this is one such circumstance in which the life of the fetus loses value, as it is effectively a parasite on the body of the woman carrying it (answering the first of the above two questions in the affirmative).

Furthermore, this is not a case where the value of the life of the fetus may rightfully come at the cost of the value of the life of the mother (serving as evidence for a negative answer to the second question above); i.e. we have no reason to regard the life of the mother as being less valuable once she has become pregnant. (The life of a criminal, on the other hand, we would regard as being less valuable, which is why we have no moral qualms about imprisoning criminals.) Since her life has not lost any value, she has not lost any of her rights (unlike a criminal), and surely the ownership of her body lies well within the sphere of her rights. The fetus does not have the right to deprive the woman of her property without her consent; as a result, the woman has a right to deny the fetus the amenities of her body (e.g. the oxygen and nutrients in her bloodstream), without which the fetus would perish.

Now, it is true that many women are emotionally harmed by an abortion, and that many abortions could be avoided if there were more resources available to help care for the newborn babies. Since it is the pregnant woman who risks emotional harm, and it is the pregnant woman who would have to dedicate the resources--her own property--to the care of the infant, she is the only person who can rightfully decide whether or not to carry the fetus to term. No one else can make that decision for her, since no one else will bear the consequences of the decision. (Compelling the father to pay child support is another matter, but I will not discuss it unless you want me to.) I hold that whenever a person makes a decision, that person must not be shielded from the consequences of that decision; this is to encourage the person to choose carefully. In this case, we should not shield a pregnant woman from the consequences of abortion, in the hopes that she will think long and hard about the decision.

I don't think there are many pro-choice people who just love abortion and think it's the greatest thing in the world. But I also realize that comparing the fetus to tumors, hair and fingernail clippings or downplaying the seriousness behind the procedure and its aftermath doesn't help the pro-choice cause at all. It just gives more ammo to people who are pro-life to further their stereotype of pro-choice individuals - that we're all a bunch of heartless, selfish baby murder sympathizers.

We pro-choicers (at least, this pro-choicer) wish(es) to communicate the illogic of the prohibition of abortion using all means at our (my) disposal. If we use an analogy that others fail to understand, then we would be happy to explain it. If the analogy is flawed, then we will abandon it, as logic demands. If pro-lifers wish to use strawmen and ad hominem attacks in their attempts to refute our arguments, that is their decision, but as I wrote above, I do not care to shield them from the consequences of such a decision.

 

[marksman315]

If all life is sacred, why not this tumour?

I must say this is absolutely the first time I have ever heard of a baby being equated to cancerous tumor. I did have a friend say "The greatest sexual disease is ... children", but even he did not say they were a cancer that should be removed.

I can now see why some people think it is ok to perform certain types of stem cell research. If people just think of unborn babies as tumors then they are all just medical fodder.

I sincerely hope that contraception works for you always.

 

[katautumn]

I can now see why some people think it is ok to perform certain types of stem cell research. If people just think of unborn babies as tumors then they are all just medical fodder.

Embryos used for stem cell research are usually ones left over from in-vitro fertilization procedures. I, personally, would much rather see them used in hopes of discovering preventative medicines for Alzheimer's Disease, Parkinson's, types of cancer, etc. I'd rather if they were going to be discarded anyway, that the unwanted embryos could at least serve a purpose. Perhaps the embryo could be the one whose stem cells were used to discover a cure for my mother-in-law who has Alzheimer's.

 

[katautumn]

I understand the source of your cognitive dissonance: you hate that which you feel is necessary (namely, abortion). I understand that such dissonance can lead to suffering on your part, so I'd like to try to help you (with your permission, of course).

While I appreciate your offer of help, I have to say I do not need it. My personal and political views don't typically cause me any sort of mental or emotional anguish. I'm not confused. I'm am very much certain of what I believe.

 

[exxxys]

I must say this is absolutely the first time I have ever heard of a baby being equated to cancerous tumor. I did have a friend say "The greatest sexual disease is ... children", but even he did not say they were a cancer that should be removed.

I can now see why some people think it is ok to perform certain types of stem cell research. If people just think of unborn babies as tumors then they are all just medical fodder.

I sincerely hope that contraception works for you always.

I do not think a baby is a cancer. Babies can be a wonderful gift to a loving couple.

My point is, if the government can force a woman to carry a baby, why can't they force her to have a cancerous tumour in her body? They both have human DNA. Whether or no they become a human, the fact of the matter is they're both human.

 

[Eleveness]

My point is, if the government can force a woman to carry a baby, why can't they force her to have a cancerous tumour in her body?

If the government can force a pregnant woman to carry the fetus inside her to term, then any other rights that the woman may have are meaningless, as the government has effectively declared, "You don't own your own body; we do. We get to say what happens to your body; you don't."

There are many activities which non-pregnant women freely engage in, that become dangerous or deadly to the fetus when the woman becomes pregnant. Many forms of strenuous exercise and sports become off-limits, particularly in the later stages of pregnancy. If the government can declare that a woman can't have an abortion, it would stand to reason that the government can prohibit activities that might be detrimental to the health of the fetus (e.g. the consumption of alcohol). At such a point, the government has effectively confiscated the woman's body from her.

Such confiscation (without due process) flies in the face of many parts of the U.S. Constitution. By prohibiting abortion, the government has effectively seized a woman's uterus, violating the Fourth Amendment. Also, dictating how a woman's body is to be used, without her consent or approval, is a form of slavery in my mind, which violates the Thirteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court obviously made the right decision in Roe v. Wade.

(Looking back over my post, I note the presence of "without due process" in parentheses near the beginning of the previous paragraph. I suppose the loss of abortion rights could serve as punishment for a crime, though this would be an unusual punishment most likely prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.)

(Apropos: When looking up the Eighth Amendment in Wikipedia, I noticed that the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of Ireland prohibits abortion. I wonder how common it is for pregnant abortion-seeking Irish women to visit another country to have an abortion. I wonder how such prohibition impacts the self-esteem of women in that country.)

 

[CreedIsChrist]

The following is an example, Goddess Forbid anyone come down with cancer


Mary is sick. Mary has cancer. It's fully operable, they just need to go in a remove a tiny tumour from her lung. With proper chemo and treatment, Mary should make a full recovery. But with one obstacle.

Many Christian groups are now AGAINST the removal of tumours and other growth in the human body. After all, a tumour is a thing inside your body, living off of your nutrients, has all of your DNA, and is essentially a living being.

These groups want to stop Mary from removing the tumour from her body, because it is alive.

^This is fiction, I don't know of any Christian groups who are agaisnt the removal of tumours. However, what happened to all life being sacred, be it cancerous or not?

If all life is sacred, why not this tumour?


BTW-I'm pro choice, just to clear up the issue of me here.

what a moronic statement

yea, cancer cells have a soul, human organs, a brain, and 24 human chormosomes. Right.

And if this is trying to say a baby is the same as a cancerious growth, well, I personally feel extremely sorry for you and blame it on how your parents raised you

My point is, if the government can force a woman to carry a baby, why can't they force her to have a cancerous tumour in her body? They both have human DNA. Whether or no they become a human, the fact of the matter is they're both human.

a baby is never forced on someone(except in rape which account for less than 1% of all abortion). A woman consents to the choice of having the possibility of being pregnant whenever she has sex. It was her choice to take the risk, not the governments

 

[exxxys]

what a moronic statement

yea, cancer cells have a soul, human organs, a brain, and 24 human chormosomes. Right.

And if this is trying to say a baby is the same as a cancerious growth, well, I personally feel extremely sorry for you and blame it on how your parents raised you




a baby is never forced on someone(except in rape which account for less than 1% of all abortion). A woman consents to the choice of having the possibility of being pregnant whenever she has sex. It was her choice to take the risk, not the governments

Hey, you want to read the rest of my posts in this thread, not just the first one?

Read Eleveness's post. It explains my point completely! (Kudos by the way! )

If the law prohibits abortion, a baby is very much forced onto a woman. She has no right to abort it, so her body no longer belongs to her.

A tumour does, in fact, have 24 human chromosomes. Every cell in the body does.

 

[Eleveness]

A woman consents to the choice of having the possibility of being pregnant whenever she has sex. It was her choice to take the risk, not the governments

As I've explained in other posts, it's entirely possible for a woman to want to have sex without wanting to conceive a child. Sex is an expression of love, and to prohibit having an abortion cripples the relationship that a woman who wishes to remain childless may have with a man.

It is true that lesser animals have sex only for procreation--they are incapable of something so quintessentially human as true love--but we humans are capable of true love, and we deserve every means at our disposal to express our love for each other. Viewed in this light, the right to have an abortion is a good thing: It allows us to love each other more fully than we would otherwise. I find it odd that Christians, who encourage us to love each other as much as possible, would be opposed to something that enables love.

 

[Eleveness]

Read Eleveness's post. It explains my point completely! (Kudos by the way! )

You're quite welcome. I enjoy using my full intellect in these debates; it is good to see that others enjoy the products of my intellect.